IMAMUDDIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court was appointed as Notary Public and was authorized to practice throughout Tehsil Sikandarabad in District Bulandsahar, Uttar Pradesh with effect from 2.8.2007 for a period of five years. On expiry of the aforesaid term of five years, the petitioner vide application dated 25.4.2012 applied for renewal of his certificate and deposited the renewal fees of Rs.500/- along with an affidavit. The certificate of the petitioner, however, has not been renewed till date.

(2.) ON receipt of certain complaints with respect to criminal cases pending against the petititoner, Deputy Legal Advisor and CA, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of legal affairs, vide letter dated 13.12.2012, referring to the affidavit submitted by the petitioner along with his application, sought explanation of the petitioner with respect to the allegations made against him. A copy of the communication received from Senior Superintendent of Police, Bulandsahar, giving details of the cases filed and decided against the petitioner was also enclosed to the said letter. The petitioner submitted reply dated 31.12.2012 stating therein that none of the pending cases against him related to an offence involing moral turpitude and therefore no false statement was made by him in the affidavit which he had furnished while seeking renewal of his certificate of practice. He also submitted copies of the order passed by the High Court of Allahabad, staying the sentence awarded to him in two cases, one under Section 302/149,147/148 of IPC and the other under Section 147/307/149/148 of IPC.

(3.) THE order suspending the certificate of practice of the petitioner was assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on two grounds. The first ground taken by him was that the petitioner was convicted much prior to his appointment as Notary Public and, therefore, his certificate of practice could not have been suspended for such conviction. In other words, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is only conviction post grant of certificate of practice which can be a ground for suspension of certificate of practice. The second contention was that none of the offences for which the petitioner has been convicted, involves moral turpitude and, therefore, such conviction cannot be a ground for suspending his certificate of practice.