THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.P.NO.5461 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.278 of 2008 on the file of the court of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad. The petitioner/accused is an Advocate and Notary and is Accused No.5. The C.I.D police after investigation took the case with regard to cheating and fabrication of documents with regard to transfer of the shares and filed a charge sheet against several accused. So far as the allegations against this petitioner are concerned, he is said to have attested the forged signatures of the original share holders and he ought to attest the signatures of the original share holders on TDCs by authenticating the same in accordance with Section 8(1)(a) of the Notaries Act,1952 (for short “the Act”) and therefore he violated the provisions of law and attested the forged signatures of the original share holders in connivance with A-1. Therefore, the petitioner/accused is charged for an offence under Section.109 read with Section 471 and 420 IPC. According to the claim of the counsel for the petitioner, the case of the prosecution is not maintainable as it is violative of the mandatory requirement of Notaries Act. According to him, no cognizance of the offence should have been taken except on a compliant filed by the officer authorised by the Central or State Government by general or special orders as contemplated under Section 13 of the Act and the compliant by the police officer is not legal. Evidently, the petitioner is said to have discharged the duties as a Notary. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision reported in V.Ranga Ramu Vs. State of Karnataka([1]). It is useful to refer to Section 13 of the Act as under:- “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 his behalf. No Magistrate other than a presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try an offence punishable under this Act. In the above decision in a facts of similar nature, the Court held that the prosecution filed by the police is not valid. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon another decision reported in Chandmal Motilal Bora Vs. State of Maharashtra([2]) whereunder exhaustively the provisions of the Act was considered and it was held that if the allegations in the charge sheet against the Notary touches official act as a Notary, the criminal court is forbidden from taking cognizance unless the complaint is in writing made by the officer authorised by the Government in this behalf. In view of the above decision, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the prosecution was initiated against the provisions of Section 13 of the Act by the police, the cognizance against the petitioner is not valid and accordingly the proceedings against the petitioner are to be quashed and the petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 03-08-2011 TSNR [1] 1999 CRL.L.J.561 [2] 2005(1) Bom.C.R.(Crl.)823