M.P.CHINNAPPA
V. RANGA RAMU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
( 2 ) HEARD.
( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an advocate and notary public and the Court has committed an error in taking cognizance of the offence and directing issue of process to this petitioner. He also further submitted that the FIR does not disclose any offence said to have been committed by this petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that the Magistrate ought not to have issued summons to this petitioner. In support of his argument, he also drew my attention to S. 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act' ). The learned S. P. P. fairly and rightly submitted that these petitions will have to be allowed in favour of the petitioner as the Courts could not have taken cognizance of the offence as contemplated under S. 13 of the Act.
( 4 ) THE brief facts of the case a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.