JUDGMENT N. Pandey J. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 23.9.1991 in Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 139 of 190, whereby, the learned Magistrate has refused to discharge the petitioner and has decided to frame charges against him under sections 401, 467, 468, 420, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner was not named in the First Information Report. A case was registered for the offences, as noticed above, with respect to the offences of changing the registration numbers of the vehicles, which were allegedly looted away. However, during course of investigation it transpired that petitioner in capacity of a Notary Public had authenticated the affidavits sworn by some of the owners. Therefore, the police having suspected that the petitioner also might have connived with the other accused persons, included his name in the chargesheet. Later, when cognizance was taken, petitioner approached this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 12858 of 1990 for quashing the order taking cognizance but the same was permitted to be withdrawn to enable the petitioner to raise the question at the time of framing of charges. 3 Mr. Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that a bare reference to Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 would indicate that no court can take cognizance of any offence committed by a Notary in exercise of his functions under this Act unless and until a complaint is made in writing by an officer authorised by the Central Government or the State Government. 4. He contended that according to the prosecution also the petitioner had only authenticated certain affidavits in capacity of a Notary Public. Admittedly, the function of the petitioner with regard to the affidavits was in capacity of the functions, assigned to him under the provisions of Notary Act. Therefore, in absence of any complaint of the competent authority, as required under section 13 of the Act either the order taking cognizance or framing charges has to be held illegal and without jurisdiction. 5. He further contended that apart from the points, as indicated above, even the merit of the case, if examined, it would appear that no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner. 6. 5. He further contended that apart from the points, as indicated above, even the merit of the case, if examined, it would appear that no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the State could not point out any material to show that sanction of competent authority was obtained nor he could show that the petitioner had committed any other offence save and except the authentication of certain affidavit. 7. In my view, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be justified. Apart from the fact that no offence has been alleged against the petitioner, it has also to be held that the order taking cognizance or the order framing charges are bad so far it relates to the petitioner as sanction of the competent authority was not obtained. This revision petition is, thus, allowed and the impugned order for framing charges against the petitioner is hereby set aside. It may however, be recorded that any of the findings, recorded in this order, will not affect the case of the prosecution with regard to other accused persons. Revision allowed.