Back
Notaries Act Section 13 Protection Does Not Cover Forged Attestation:
The has ruled that the protective shield of , does not extend to a notary who participates in with . Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed a petition filed by notary P. Imbichi Koya, who sought to quash a vigilance case against him on the ground that no complaint was made by an authorized government officer as required under the Act.
A Consent Letter Without the Signatory
The case arises from Crime No. 3/2014 of the , now pending as C.C. No. 29/2023 before the . Koya is the eighth accused in a matter related to the grant of a building permit. The prosecution alleges that on , Koya attested a consent letter purportedly executed by one Rajan Nair, but Nair later told the police that he never appeared before the notary. To make matters worse, Koya allegedly did not enter this transaction in his Notarial Register, suggesting an intent to suppress the forged document.
The Notary's Plea and the Prosecution's Response
Koya's counsel argued that under , no court can take cognizance of an offence committed by a notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions unless a written complaint is made by an officer authorized by the Central or State Government. They pointed out that the authorized officer here is the Secretary, , and no such complaint was filed. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions in and , where proceedings were quashed for non-compliance with Section 13(1).
The prosecution, however, contended that the protection under Section 13 is available only for lawful acts performed in the discharge of statutory duties. Attesting a document in the absence of the executant and then omitting it from the register is not an official act but an act of . Koya, by his own conduct, had stepped outside the boundaries of a notary's functions.
Where Protection Ends and Criminality Begins
Justice Badharudeen drew a clear line between acts done in as a notary and those done with . The court explained that the legislative intent behind Section 13 is to protect notaries from false prosecution for —for instance, if a notary unknowingly attests a copy of a forged original. But the protection is not a blanket license to commit fraud.
The court observed:
"The Protection contemplated under Section 13 of the Notaries Act is available only in respect of acts performed by a Notary in the
or
of his
. It does not extend to offences committed with
or acts which are wholly outside the scope of the statutory duties of the Notary."
On the facts, the court noted that the allegation that Koya failed to make entries in the Notarial Register pointed to a conscious effort to conceal the . This showed , taking the act outside the ambit of Section 13.
The court also rejected the argument that every offence connected with a notary's work gets protection:
"a straight-jacket formula could not be laid down to hold that each and every offence committed by a Notary, which has a connection with his functions as a Notary, would get protection under Section 13 of the Notaries Act."
Petition Dismissed, Trial to Proceed
Finding that the plea based on Section 13(1) had no merit on the facts of the case, the High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous case. It vacated any interim stay and directed the , to proceed with the trial. The registry was ordered to forward a copy of the order to the Special Court for compliance.
The decision reaffirms that notaries cannot use their statutory protections as a shield against allegations of active . It serves as a reminder that the immunity under the Notaries Act is limited to lawful functions and does not cover deliberate participation in document .
