M.L. Tahaliyani, J.

1. Admitted. Heard finally.

2. The present petition is filed by the accused No. 2 in Criminal Case No. 94 of 2006 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kankavali, District Sindhudurg. There are in all three accused in the said case. The petitioner is a practising lawyer and has also been appointed as Notary Public under the Notaries Act 1952. The Accused No. 1 Jagdish Yashwant Dalvi is brother of the complainant. Accused No. 3 Dnyaneshwar Vasant Kale is a practicing Advocate. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 both are practising at Mumbai and as already stated, the accused No. 2/petitioner has also been appointed as Notary Public.

3. The Accused No. 1 - Jagdish Yashwant Dalvi has three brothers, his brothers and accused No. 1 himself jointly own a property at Kankavali, District Sindhudurg, Maharashtra. It is alleged that accused No. 1 prepared a false power of attorney purported to be executed by brothers of accused No. 1 in favour of accused No. 1 giving authority to accused No. 1 to sale property belonging to his brothers including the complainant. It is further alleged that under the said alleged authority accused No. 1 had sold the property belonging to his brothers. His brothers came to know about sale of property when they received a notice from revenue office for mutation of the names in revenue record. Matter was reported to police and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation it was found that the said power of attorney was executed before the present petitioner Bramhadev Ramshiromani Dube as he was working as Notary Public. It was also revealed that the brothers of the accused No. 1 were identified by accused No. 3, advocate Dnyaneshwar Vasant Kale.

4. Therefore, after completion of investigation charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) was filed against accused No. 1 Jagdish Dalvi, accused No. 3 Dnyaneshwar Kale and the present petitioner.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Tulpule appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner in fact has committed no offence in as much as a lot of persons appear before him and he in an ordinary course of his business signs so many documents as notary public. It is submitted that the petitioner and other Notaries normally believe and trust the advocate who identifies the deponent. Mr. Tulpule has submitted that the petitioner believed that the identification made by accused No. 3 Dnyaneshwar Kale must be correct and, therefore, he signed the power of attorney. It is contended that the mens rea is integral part of all the offences with which the petitioner has been charged. Mr. Tulpule has submitted that plain reading of the charge-sheet against the petitioner indicate that there was no criminal element involved in the act of the petitioner. As far as the second document in respect of the sale of property is concerned, the petitioner is nowhere concerned with the said document.

6. In addition to the arguments on merits of the case, the learned counsel Mr. Tulpule has further submitted that the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner unless there was a complaint in writing filed by the officer authorized by the Central Government or the State Government by general or special order in this behalf.

7. As far as facts of the case are concerned, it appears that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner in as much as he did not bother to verify whether the photographs on the documents tallied with the persons who were appeared before him as deponents. Unless there is material on record, direct or circumstantial, to indicate that the petitioner had intentionally signed the documents as notary public knowing well that the person who had appeared before him as a deponent was not a person whose name is mentioned in the document, it is not possible to say that the petitioner was party