Complaint By Govt. Required To Prosecute Notary For Official Acts: Kerala High Court
A notary-lawyer was accused of attesting a forged consent letter.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has clarified that in terms of Section 13(i) of the Notaries Act, 1952, a criminal court cannot take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by a notary public while exercising functions under the Act unless a complaint is filed by an officer duly authorised by the Central or State Government concerned.
A Bench of Justice C. Pratheep Kumar noted, “Admittedly, the petitioner is a practicing lawyer and a notary public. It is also admitted that the alleged consent letter was attested by the petitioner in discharge of his function as a notary public.”
The Court while examining the scope and application of Section 13(i), noted that the requirement of a government-authorised complaint is a condition precedent for prosecuting a notary for acts done in the course of official notarial functions. The Court held, “From the above provision it is clear that for taking cognizance of any offence committed by a notary in exercise of his functions under the Notaries Act, complaint made by an officer authorized by the concerned government is necessary.”
Advocate V.A. Vinod appeared for the Petitioner and Senior PP Bindu O.V. appeared for the Respondents.
Background
The petitioner in the case was a practising advocate as well as a notary public. The prosecution alleged that accused persons Nos. 1 and 2, with the assistance of the petitioner, had fabricated a consent letter in the year 2021, purportedly executed by the de facto complainant.
It was further alleged that this forged consent letter, attested by the petitioner in her capacity as a notary, was subsequently produced before the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation for the purpose of obtaining a licence to run a cool bar and bakery.
On the basis of these allegations, the petitioner was arrayed as the third accused in the crime and was charged with offences punishable under Sections 465 (punishment for forgery), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) of the Indian Penal Code.
Seeking to quash the proceedings, the petitioner approached the High Court contending that the mandatory requirement under Section 13(i) of the Notaries Act had not been complied with, as no complaint had been filed by an officer authorised by the appropriate government. It was argued that the alleged act of attestation was performed by the petitioner in the discharge of her statutory duties as a notary public, thereby attracting the protection under the Act.
Finding
The High Court accepted the petitioner’s contention and placed reliance on the earlier decision in Jolsna E.P. v. State of Kerala and another [2020 (6) KHC 334], wherein it was categorically held that compliance with Section 13 of the Notaries Act is mandatory for initiating prosecution against a notary public for acts done in the exercise of notarial functions.
Observing that the statutory requirement had admittedly not been fulfilled in the present case, the Court held that the prosecution against the petitioner could not be sustained.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed all further proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the registration of the crime.
Cause Title: Malu. K. v. State of Kerala & Ors., [2026:KER:1595]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates V.A. Vinod, Anil Kumar K.P.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Bindu O.V., Advocates Nirmal S., Veena Hari