Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
Malu K. W/o Prabhakaran – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations against the petitioner revolve around alleged forgery in notarizing documents. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution claims lack compliance with the notaries act. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court requires compliance with section 13 for valid prosecution. (Para 5) |
ORDER :
2. The allegation is that the accused persons 1 and 2 with the help of the petitioner create a fabricated consent letter on 21.05.2021 purported to be executed by the defacto complainant and produced the same before the Kozhikode Corporation and obtained license for conducting a cool bar and bakery.
4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
13. Cognizance of offence.—
(2) No Magistrate other than a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try an offence punishable under this Act.
S.13, S.8 - Prosecution against Notary -- Mandatory requirement -- Complaint by Officer authorised by Central Government or State Government is sine qua non for taking cognizance of offence against a Notary who purportedly exercise his functions under the Act -- Penal Code, 1860, S.463, S.464, S.465, S.467, S.468 and S.471 Held: There would
Mandatory compliance with Section 13 of the Notaries Act is required for prosecuting a notary public, failing which cognizance of the offence cannot be taken.
No cognizance of offences by notary in exercise of functions under Notaries Act without written complaint by authorized officer of Central/State Government. FIR quashed for non-compliance with Sectio....
No court can take cognizance of offences by a Notary in exercise or purported exercise of functions without written complaint by authorized Central/State Government officer per Section 13 Notaries Ac....
The Notary's failure to verify the identity of the deponent during notarization constitutes professional misconduct, negating protections under the Notaries Act.
The main legal point established is that the cognizance of an offense committed by a notary under the Notaries Act can only be taken upon a written complaint by an authorized officer, as per Section ....
A notary cannot be held liable for notarizing a document that is part of forgery or conspiracy.
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Add....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that for initiating proceedings against a notary, a written complaint by an authorized officer as required by Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 19....
The protection under Section 13 of the Notaries Act 1952 would not be available to the notary as the act of forgery and cheating did not fall within the functions of the notary under the Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
