ORDER 1. The petitioner who happens to be an advocate practising in Shujalpur city, is hereby invoking powers of this Court under provisions of S. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code). 2. The facts of the prosecution which the petitioner is facing need to be stated as hereunder: The petitioner is a notary appointed under the provisions of Notary Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and is performing his duties as such in Shujalpur city. On 13.11.87, affidavit of Devisingh was sworn before the petitioner in presence of two witnesses namely Kailashpuri s/o Gopipuri and Babukhan s/o Budekhan. The said affidavit was sworn by the said person for standing as surety for M/s. Sudha Poha Industries, Shujalpurrun by Shushil Kumar s/o Ramkrishna, for obtaining loan from State Bank of Indore, Shujalpur branch. Later on it was found that the said loan was not re-paid and on inquiry it was found that said affidavit was not sworn by Devisingh s/o Bewal R/o Lotakevdi. The concerned officer of State Bank of Indore Shujalpur branch lodged a complaint against the petitioner, Shushilkumar, Babukhan, Kailashpuri for offences punishable u/Ss. 467, 468, 420 r/w 34 IPC in the Court of J.M.F.C. Shujalpur. 3. Petitioner made a prayer before the J.M.F.C. Shujalpur that the complaint made against him be dismissed and he be discharged because no offence was spelt out against him. Learned Magistrate dismissed the said prayer. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court, Shajapur and 3rd A.S.J. Shajapur, who heard the said revision petition and dismissed it on 4.11.93. Therefore, the petitioner has moved this Court for invoking powers of this Court under provisions of S. 482 of the Code. 4. Shri M.I. Khan, counsel for petitioner, firstly raised the objection that in view of provisions of S. 13 of the Notary Act, 1952, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary, in exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Act save upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Central Govt. or a State Govt. by general or special order in this behalf and, therefore, the complaint filed by an officer of State Bank of Indore, Shujalpur branch was bad in law and Court of J.M.F.C. Shujalpur has committed an error of law in taking cognizance of the said complaint. 5. or a State Govt. by general or special order in this behalf and, therefore, the complaint filed by an officer of State Bank of Indore, Shujalpur branch was bad in law and Court of J.M.F.C. Shujalpur has committed an error of law in taking cognizance of the said complaint. 5. Shri Desai, G.A for prosecution submitted that the Court of J.M.F.C. did not commit the error of law in taking cognizance of the said complaint. 6. I find substance in submission made on behalf of prosecution for the reasons stated hereunder: S. 13 will have to be read as a whole. Sub. S. (1) of S. 13 of the Act provides that 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 State Government by general or special order in this behalf. Sub. S. (2) of S. 13 provides that - No Magistrate other than a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try an offence punishable under this Act. It is the argument of Shri Khan, counsel for petitioner that 'any offence' means any offence under any Penal Law including provisions of Indian Penal Code. I do not agree with him because such interpretation is not proper, reasonable and legal. I do not find that it is the intention of the legislature to mean by words 'any offence', -- any offence punishable under any Penal Legislation. Had that been the intention of the legislature, there was no necessity of enacting Sub. S. (2) of S. 13 which provides that - no magistrate other than a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try an offence punishable' under this Act. The word 'under this Act' has been provided in sub. S. (2) of Act and that word connects 'any offence' which has been used in sub. S. 1 of S. 13. If the legislature wanted to indicate by word 'any offence', 'any offence' punishable under Penal Legislation, there was no need of indicating that no Magistrate than the Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of 1st Class shall try the offence punishable under this Act (The Notaries Act 1952). The legislature would have used the word 'any offence under any Penal Legislation' instead of 'under this Act'. The legislature would have used the word 'any offence under any Penal Legislation' instead of 'under this Act'. 7. It would be unreasonable to believe that legislature had the intention of making a provision that no Court shall take cognizance of the complaint made against a notary in connection with an act done in the exercise or purported exercise. For in official function under this Act which is an offence punishable under any Penal Act save upon the complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by Central Govt. or State Govt. by general or special order in this behalf. Because, a notary may commit an offence punishable under provisions of other penal laws while he happens to be a notary and while functioning as a notary, when he commits an act which does not have any connection with the offence indicated by provisions of Act, it would be unreasonable and illegal to put such a restriction on the Court prohibiting the Court from taking the cognizance of complaint made against such a notary for such an act amounting to an offence. For example a notary may molest a woman testifying an affidavit before him while functioning as a notary. In such case should it be expected that Court does not have the power to take cognizance of such a complaint if not made by an officer authorised by Central Govt. or State Govt. by general or special order in that behalf. There are other acts which may be offences under other provisions of penal laws. Similar to the example mentioned above there are other acts which the notary may commit while functioning as a notary and they may be offences punishable under penal laws. 8. Shri M.I. Khan, counsel for the petitioner further argued that by reading a complaint as a whole and documents produced in support of the complaint which are on record, no crime is spelt out against the petitioner in respect of offences punishable u/Ss. 467,468 r/w 34 I.P.C. Shri Desai, G.A. for prosecution was unable to nullify this argument though he tried his best. 9. I find substance in the submission made by learned counsel Shri M.I. Khan, for petitioner, because in the present case a person had come to the petitioner, who happens to be a notary and was functioning as such, on 13.11.87 and he had sworn an affidavit before him. 9. I find substance in the submission made by learned counsel Shri M.I. Khan, for petitioner, because in the present case a person had come to the petitioner, who happens to be a notary and was functioning as such, on 13.11.87 and he had sworn an affidavit before him. The material on record shows that said person was identified as Devisingh s/o Bawal by Babukhan s/o Budekhan. The record further shows that said Babukhan was known to petitioner-the notary. Record further shows that believing Babukhan s/o Budekhan, petitioner performed the act of swearing of affidavit by said Devisingh s/o Bawal and thereafter put his signature on the said affidavit and impressed his seal. The experience shows that many persons come before notary for the purpose of swearing the affidavits and the notary is not expected to know each and every such person who come for swearing affidavit before him. Some of them need to be identified by some persons whom notary identifies. If the notary believes the said person identifying the person swearing the affidavit, in good faith, in my opinion the notary will not be liable for any deception made by the said person swearing the affidavit or the person falsely identifying him. The notary will not be in a position to know the things in the minds of those persons. If at all the prosecution wants to make such a notary liable for punishment of the offence of cheating or forgery in context with such affidavit, the prosecution is obliged to bring such material on record to show that such notary acted callously, acted in such a way which does not come under the purview of word 'good faith'. The prosecution is obliged to bring such material on record which will show that notary acted without due care and caution. 10. For the purpose of booking such notary for offence of cheating and forgery, it is the duty of prosecution to bring it on record that such notary was having knowledge of such deception or forgery and was hands in gloves with them while creating such a document. The material which is on record docs not show that present applicant was acting without due care and caution. The material on record does not show that the present petitioner was hands in gloves with such Devisingh s/o Bawal and Babukhan s/o Budekhan. 11. The material which is on record docs not show that present applicant was acting without due care and caution. The material on record does not show that the present petitioner was hands in gloves with such Devisingh s/o Bawal and Babukhan s/o Budekhan. 11. It is also important to note at this juncture that if it is made necessary that notary should know each and every person, coming before him, for the purpose of swearing the affidavit, the work of swearing of affidavit before notary would not be done smoothly. Notary is not expected to know each and every person coming before him for swearing affidavit. He is required to depend on persons who are identifying such persons. The appointment of notary for the purpose of swearing the affidavit has been made, in my opinion, for the purpose of helping the cause of public. Identification of each and every person swearing affidavit before the notary is not practicable and possible. In my opinion that cannot be the intention behind appointing notaries for the purpose of swearing the affidavit. 12. Learned trial Court and the revisional Court did not take into consideration this aspect of the matter properly, reasonably and, therefore, landed in error. The trial Court landed in error in framing the charge against the present petitioner for offences punishable u/ss. 467, 468, 420 and 34 IPC, and revisional Court committed the mistake in not allowing the revision petition of the petitioner quashing the charge which has been framed against him by the trial Court for the offences mentioned above. 13. Every criminal prosecution invites humiliation, annoyance and embarrassment to the person facing it. If material on record shows his innocence vividly, he shall not be required to undergo torturous ordeal of the trial. That stigmatises his personality, life and even career. That causes lot of expenditure also. 14. When the injustice is being caused and when there is abuse of process of law, it is the duty of the High Court to invoke its powers under S. 482 of the Code for the purpose of doing the justice. It is a fit case in which this Court should invoke its powers u/s 482 of the Code, for the purpose of quashing the charge framed against the petitioner by J.M.F.C. Shujalpur in Cr.C. No. 273/92 and the said prosecution against him. 15. It is a fit case in which this Court should invoke its powers u/s 482 of the Code, for the purpose of quashing the charge framed against the petitioner by J.M.F.C. Shujalpur in Cr.C. No. 273/92 and the said prosecution against him. 15. The prosecution against the petitioner in context with Cr. C. 273/92 is hereby quashed. In the result the charge framed against the present petitioner for offence under Ss. 467, 468, 420 r/w 34 IPC stands quashed. The petitioner stands discharged. The trial Court should proceed against the other accused indicated in the said complaint in accordance with provisions of law, because this order does not affect the prosecution initiated against them.