JUDGMENT N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.P. Raval waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State. 1.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the compass of the matter and with consent of both the learned Advocates, this Revision is taken up for final consideration, making Rule returnable forthwith. The petitioner, practising as Notary Advocate, has brought under challenge order dated 8-1-2015 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, whereby the Sessions Judge dismissed application below Exh. 22 of the applicant-accused for his discharge under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the First Information Report being C.R. No. 1-3 of 2011 dated 30-1-2011 came to be registered with Mangrol Police Station, Junagadh in respect of offences punishable under Secs. 363, 366, 376, 466, 471, 465 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant mother stated that a fare was organized nearby their village and they had gone their to sell their goods and material on 10-4-2010. Therefrom on the said date, that is, 10-4-2010, her daughter was found missing. On 30-1-2011, she had gone to Veraval Railway Station to receive a relative. At that time, she showed her daughter who had disappeared on 10-4-2010 stepping down from the train with a kid in her hand and she was accompanied by a boy aged 22-25 years. The complainant rushed to her daughter and asked her about boy who had by the time eloped. The daughter stated that she had married with the boy named Sanjay Chandubhai Solanki and the child was borne out of the wedlock. The girl stated that the marriage was executed by executing stamp paper through the Notary. Attributed with the aforesaid role, the applicant-Notary was arraigned as accused No. 5. 2.1. Sessions Case No. 94 of 2012 came to be registered, in which, the applicant-accused No. 5 submitted an application below Exh. 22 seeking his discharge, stating inter alia that he was having a sanad to practise law, had been practising lawyer since 5-5-1991 and was also a Notary Public appointed by the Central Government under Notary Certificate No. 6836. The discharge was sought on the ground that the cognizance of alleged offence could not have been taken because Sec. 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 was not complied with. The discharge was sought on the ground that the cognizance of alleged offence could not have been taken because Sec. 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 was not complied with. Learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application by passing following operative order: "This application is rejected. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to get sanction as per Sec.13 of the Notaries Act from the concerned Authority. D.G.P., Gandhinagar may take explanation from the concerned Investigation Officer in Charge-sheet No. I-6B/2012 dated 17-4-2012 in F.I.R. No. 1-3 of 2011 dated 30-1-2011 registered at Mangol Police Station, Junagadh, the Investigating Officer being Mr. P.V. Gohil, Circle Police Inspector, at the relevant point of time." 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the applicant submitted that in view of provisions of Sec. 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (hereinafter mentioned as "the Act"), the Court was debarred from taking cognizance of any offence alleged against Notary. He submitted that the complaint could have been filed by officer authorized by Central Government or State Government. Learned Advocate relied on decision of this Court in Ashokbhai Rameshchandra Ghantivala v. State of Gujarat, 2009 (2) GLH 491 . 3.1. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.P. Raval supported the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge by submitting that it is kept open for the Investigating Officer to get sanction as per Sec. 13, therefore, the impugned order is not required to be interfered with. He submitted that the sanction can be taken subsequently also. In the next, he relied on decision of this Court in case of the applicant himself being Misc. Criminal Application No. 1934 of 2011 which was filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the First Information Report in question. It was submitted that the said application having been rejected, the contention about non-compliance of Sec. 13is not well-founded. 4. It is not in dispute that the applicant was a Notary having valid Notary Certificate. The role attributed to him in the First Information Report is only to the extent stated above. He is made accused only insofar as he notarized the documents of stamp paper, whereby the eloped girl and boy contracted marriage before the Notary by executing the said documents notarized by the applicant. The role attributed to him in the First Information Report is only to the extent stated above. He is made accused only insofar as he notarized the documents of stamp paper, whereby the eloped girl and boy contracted marriage before the Notary by executing the said documents notarized by the applicant. It is also not in dispute that the applicant was exercising his functions as Notary under the Act and in respect of his act, it is treated and arraigned as offence. Now, Sec. 13 of the Notaries Act provides as under: "Sec. 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 complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf. (2) No Magistrate other than a Presidency of Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class shall try an offence punishable under this Act." 4.1. The aforesaid provisions clearly lays down that any Court shall not take cognizance of offence against Notary, acting for exercising his functions as Notary except upon a complaint in writing by the authorised officer. In the present case, the complaint which was filed in which the applicant was shown as accused, was not by the authorised officer. There was no compliance of Sec. 13. As stated above, the role attributed of the applicant in the F.I.R. was limited. No other allegations were made or no further role was attributed. 4.2. The contention of learned A.P.P. that the clarification and contention provided in the impugned order would suffice, cannot be accepted. The requirement of Sec. 13 has to be complied with in letter and spirit. The non-compliance of Sec. 13renders the very initiation incompetent in law, and the basis of that the Court could not take cognizance as far as the applicant is concerned. 4.3. Reliance placed by learned Advocate on the order of this Court passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1934 of 2011 mentioned above is not well-placed. The said application under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant herein at the stage when only F.I.R. was filed seeking protection of Sec. 13. In the judgment dated 12-1-2012, this Court did not entertain the application. Criminal Application No. 1934 of 2011 mentioned above is not well-placed. The said application under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant herein at the stage when only F.I.R. was filed seeking protection of Sec. 13. In the judgment dated 12-1-2012, this Court did not entertain the application. At the stage of investigation of the offence registered, shelter of Sec. 13 of the Act was not justified. In Paragraph 5.1 of the judgment, the Court, however, observed as under: "5.1. Considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complaint/F.I.R. cannot be quashed and set aside considering Sec. 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952. At the most, Sec. 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 can be made applicable at the time of taking cognizance by the concerned Court/Magistrate. From plain reading of Sec. 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952, it is manifest that it comes into operation at the stage when the Court intends to take cognizance of an offence against the Notary." 4.4. Now, when the stage of taking cognizance by the Court has reached at such appropriate stage, the applicant filed application Exh. 22 contending that Sec. 13 of the Notaries Act was not applied, therefore, the complaint was not competent in law and that the cognizance of the offence against the Notary could, therefore, be not taken. 5. The facts in the decision in Ashokbhai Rameshchandra Ghantivala (supra) were similar to the present case. The applicant-Notary had notarized a power of attorney which was later notarized (sic.) to be a forged document, whereunder the accused admitted to sell an agricultural land belonging to the complainant and committed alleged offence. As the applicant-accused was shown as accused in the F.I.R. filed and the Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence on the basis of charge-sheet filed, the contention was raised that in view of Sec. 13 of the Act, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence against the Notary unless the same was in writing as provided under Sec. 13, this Court held as under: "A plain reading of Sec. 13 makes it clear that a complaint against a Notary in exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Act has to be made in writing by an officer authorised by the Central Government or the concerned State Government by general or special order in this behalf. Unless a complaint is made in the manner prescribed, no Court is empowered to take cognizance of the offence. This view finds support from the objects and reasons behind the said provision, which reads thus: "The Committee considers that protection should be given to Notaries in respect of cognizance of offences. They think that protection should be given only to notaries who commit an offence acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their functions under this Act. This clause has been inserted with this object." From the objects and reasons, it is apparent that even if an offence is committed by a Notary while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his functions under the Act, a complaint can be lodged only as provided under Sec. 13 of the Act. Thus, any offence committed by a Notary acting or purporting to act in discharge of his functions under the Act would fall within the ambit of the Section and a Court can take cognizance of such offence only if the complaint is made in the manner laid down in the Section." 5.1. Judgment dated 20-12-2012 passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 575 of 2012 and allied matters in Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, in Paragraph 21 of the judgment, this Court observed as under to reiterate the position of law with regard to Sec. 13 of the Act: "21. As per Sec. 13 of the Act, cognizance can be taken by the Court only on a complaint having been filed by an authorized officer. However, in the instant case, it appears that the complaint is not filed after such authorization and straightway charge-sheet is filed, and therefore, the Court cannot take cognizance in absence of a complaint as envisaged under Sec. 13 of the Act. However, it is observed that confirming the order of the Sessions Court discharging original accused No. 5 shall not preclude the authorized officers from taking appropriate steps under Sec. 13 of the Act, if they so deem fit." 6. The complaint having been not filed by the authorised officer was infirm in law for being not in accordance with Sec. 13 of the Act. The cognizance of the offence cannot be taken by the Court. The non-compliance of the provisions strikes at the root. The complaint having been not filed by the authorised officer was infirm in law for being not in accordance with Sec. 13 of the Act. The cognizance of the offence cannot be taken by the Court. The non-compliance of the provisions strikes at the root. Subsequent compliance cannot cure the defect in law inasmuch as taking cognizance of offence itself is barred. 7. For the aforesaid reasons and discussion, the order dated 8-1-2015 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, dismissing application below Exh. 22, cannot sustain. The same is hereby set aside. Sessions Case No. 94 of 2012 cannot continue against the petitioner and it is ordered accordingly. However, at the same time, it is clarified that the respondents are not precluded from taking appropriate steps under Sec. 13 of the Act, if they so deem fit. Rule is made absolute in the terms as above.