Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1785 (BOM)

Bramhadev R. Dube v. State of Maharashtra

2013-09-02

M.L.TAHALIYANI

body2013
Judgment M.L. Tahaliyani, J. 1. Admitted. Heard finally. 2. The present petition is filed by the accused No. 2 in Criminal Case No. 94 of 2006 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kankavali, District Sindhudurg. There are in all three accused in the said case. The petitioner is a practising lawyer and has also been appointed as Notary Public under the Notaries Act 1952. The Accused No. 1 Jagdish Yashwant Dalvi is brother of the complainant. Accused No. 3 Dnyaneshwar Vasant Kale is a practicing Advocate. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 both are practising at Mumbai and as already stated, the accused No. 2/petitioner has also been appointed as Notary Public. 3. The Accused No. 1 - Jagdish Yashwant Dalvi has three brothers, his brothers and accused No. 1 himself jointly own a property at Kankavali, District Sindhudurg, Maharashtra. It is alleged that accused No. 1 prepared a false power of attorney purported to be executed by brothers of accused No. 1 in favour of accused No. 1 giving authority to accused No. 1 to sale property belonging to his brothers including the complainant. It is further alleged that under the said alleged authority accused No. 1 had sold the property belonging to his brothers. His brothers came to know about sale of property when they received a notice from revenue office for mutation of the names in revenue record. Matter was reported to police and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation it was found that the said power of attorney was executed before the present petitioner Bramhadev Ramshiromani Dube as he was working as Notary Public. It was also revealed that the brothers of the accused No. 1 were identified by accused No. 3, advocate Dnyaneshwar Vasant Kale. 4. Therefore, after completion of investigation charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) was filed against accused No. 1 Jagdish Dalvi, accused No. 3 Dnyaneshwar Kale and the present petitioner. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Tulpule appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner in fact has committed no offence in as much as a lot of persons appear before him and he in an ordinary course of his business signs so many documents as notary public. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Vijay Tulpule appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner in fact has committed no offence in as much as a lot of persons appear before him and he in an ordinary course of his business signs so many documents as notary public. It is submitted that the petitioner and other Notaries normally believe and trust the advocate who identifies the deponent. Mr. Tulpule has submitted that the petitioner believed that the identification made by accused No. 3 Dnyaneshwar Kale must be correct and, therefore, he signed the power of attorney. It is contended that the mens rea is integral part of all the offences with which the petitioner has been charged. Mr. Tulpule has submitted that plain reading of the charge-sheet against the petitioner indicate that there was no criminal element involved in the act of the petitioner. As far as the second document in respect of the sale of property is concerned, the petitioner is nowhere concerned with the said document. 6. In addition to the arguments on merits of the case, the learned counsel Mr. Tulpule has further submitted that the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner unless there was a complaint in writing filed by the officer authorized by the Central Government or the State Government by general or special order in this behalf. 7. As far as facts of the case are concerned, it appears that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner in as much as he did not bother to verify whether the photographs on the documents tallied with the persons who were appeared before him as deponents. Unless there is material on record, direct or circumstantial, to indicate that the petitioner had intentionally signed the documents as notary public knowing well that the person who had appeared before him as a deponent was not a person whose name is mentioned in the document, it is not possible to say that the petitioner was party to the alleged forgery and cheating. It is not possible to say that the act committed by accused No. 1 was in furtherance of common intention of accused No. 1 himself and petitioner and accused No. 3 advocate Kale. 8. The second leg of argument of Mr. It is not possible to say that the act committed by accused No. 1 was in furtherance of common intention of accused No. 1 himself and petitioner and accused No. 3 advocate Kale. 8. The second leg of argument of Mr. Tulpule is based on Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, which reads as under: "13. 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 complainant in writing made by an officer authorized by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf." 9. Mr. Tulpule has submitted that in view of this provision, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioner. The learned counsel Mr. Sakhalkar appearing on behalf of the original complainant and learned Additional P.P. Mr. S.V. Sonawane appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 - State have submitted that cheating and forgery are not the offences which can be committed by the notary in exercise of his functions as notary public. It is submitted that notary public was under an obligation to take care that the document is signed by a person who appeared before him and the photograph pasted on the document belonged to the same person. No doubt, the notary public was under an obligation to take care that the deponent who signed the document was the same person in whose name the document was signed. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that Section 13 not only protects the notary from the alleged offences committed in exercise of his functions but it also protects the purported exercise of said functions. Had the act of notary/petitioner been is totally extraneous to his duties, the protection under Section 13 would not have been available to him. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is protected by Section 13of the Act. The learned Magistrate in my considered opinion, has committed error in taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner. It therefore follows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg has also erred in rejecting the Revision Application filed by the petitioner. The petition, therefore, succeeds. The proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kankavali vide criminal case No. 94 of 2006 shall stand quashed. It therefore follows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg has also erred in rejecting the Revision Application filed by the petitioner. The petition, therefore, succeeds. The proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kankavali vide criminal case No. 94 of 2006 shall stand quashed. Bail bond of the petitioner, if any, shall stands cancelled. Petition accordingly stands disposed of. The trial against the other accused is expedited. The learned Magistrate is directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Petition allowed.