G.S. Ahluwalia, J.

Heard on the question of admission.

The facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Krishna, wife of Late Rambharosi, lodged a written complaint that her husband Rambharosi was the owner of Survey No.18/2/Min area 1.672 hectares situated in village Karavah Damora. Her husband has expired on 18-11-2014. Thereafter, when She filed an application for mutation of her name, then her name was not mutated by the Patwari on the ground that one Janak Singh of Tahsil Ghatigaon, has applied for mutation of his name on the basis of "Will" executed by Rambharosi. When She went to the office of Tahsildar, then She came to know that a forged "Will" of her Late husband has been prepared because her husband had expired on 18-11-2014, whereas the "Will" was prepared on 19-11-2014. It was further alleged that Janak Singh, on the pretext of publising the Obituary message, had taken the photograph of her husband from her, which was misused by him by affixing the same on the said forged "Will". Thus, it was alleged that forged "Will" has been prepared and it is also written in the "Will" that no loan is outstanding, whereas her husband had taken a loan of Rs. 70,000 from Punjab National Bank, Patai which is still outstanding. Thus, on the basis of said written complaint, the police registered offence in Crime No. 4/16 for offence under Sections 420,423,466,467,471,471 and 120B of I.P.C.

2. During the investigation, it was found, that the applicant, who was working as Notary had notarized the said "Will", and accordingly, he too has been made an accused.

3. The police after completing the investigation, has filed the charge sheet for the above mentioned offence.

4. Challenging the charge-sheet filed by the police, it is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant, that in view of Section 13 of Notaries Act, the police is not competent to file the charge-sheet and the Court should not have taken the cognizance against the applicant.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

6. Section 13 of Notaries Act read as under :

"13. Cognizance of offence.-

(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under this Act save upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf.

(2) No Magistrate other than a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try an offence punishable under this Act."

7. It is the case of the applicant, that since, the police has filed a charge-sheet against him along with other co-accused persons, therefore, the Court, in absence of complaint, could not have taken cognizance of the offence against him. To buttress his contentions, the Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the order dated 16-9- 2014 passed by the Madras High Court in the case of V. Ramakrishnan Vs. State through its passed in Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 208 of 2014.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. It is well established principle of law that "a court takes cognizance of an offence and not an offender".

10. Thus, in a criminal case, the cognizance can be taken only once and the Court is not required to take cognizance against each and every offencer. Thus, the question which requires for consideration in the present case is that when the Court has already taken the cognizance of offence, then in absence of a complaint as required under Section 13 of Notaries Act, whether the applicant can be prosecuted or not?

11. The word "Complaint" has been defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., which reads as under :

"2(d) Complaint means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation.-A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the co