C. ELANGOVAN Vs. STATE THROUGH, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SPE:CBI:ACB:CHENNAI, IN FIR. NO. 20/A/2008/CBI/ACB/CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying to quash the charge-sheet filed against him in C.C.No.1 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Puducherry. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as A3 in the said case.

(2.) The brief fact of the case of the prosecution are as follows - 2-1. The 1st accused V. Gurubatham, while working as Deputy Tahsildar at the office of the Deputy Collector (Revenue) and Branch Survey Office, Karaikal, Directorate of Survey and Land Records, Puducherry, Deputy Collector (Revenue), North, Puducherry, as Sub-Registrar, Registration Department, Puducherry and Additional charge as Sub-Registrar, Villianur, during the period from 01.01.2002 to 29.04.2008, acquired disproportionate assets to his known sources of income, in his name and in the names of his family members, to the tune of Rs. 50,43,193/- for which he cannot satisfactorily account for. It is stated that during the search held on 10.04.2008, a huge amount was seized from the residence of the 1st accused Gurubatham. 2-2. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the 1st accused Gurubatham, Coumoudame, the petitioner herein, Harish (Juvenile), Chandrasekaran and N.Maragatham entered into criminal conspiracy, during the period between 10.04.2008 and 29.04.2008 at Puducherry and other places, for fabrication of false records for the purpose of using the same as genuine in the Court of law, for using the same as explanation for the huge amount seized from the residence of the 1st accused Gurubatham during the search held on 10.04.2008 and for return of the amount. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, the accused G.Goumoudame and Harish had created an agreement with ante-date as 07.04.2008 with false averments as if one N.Maragatham paid an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs against advance consideration for purchase of house property of V.Gurubatham and obtained the signatures of V.Gurubatham as executant in favour of the said N.Maragatham, during which the 1st accused-Gurubahtham was in judicial custody in connection with the case registered for disproportionate case in RC.No.18(A)/08; further, they obtained the signatures of N.Maragatham as purchaser and one D.Chandrasekar, as a witness for the said agreement, knowing fully well that no consideration was passed under the said agreement and the agreement is an antedated one, for facilitating the 1st accused-Gurubatham to explain the sources of income so as to escape from the clutches of law. The petitioner herein, who is a Notary Public/Advocate, attested the said ante-dated agreement as if he attested on 07.04.2008, knowing fully well that the said agreement was not entered into between the parties in his presence and he further fabricated the Notarial Register in support of his attestation. Hence, the case was registered under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120(B) r/w 467, 468, 471 and 193 IPC against the accused persons, including the petitioner herein, who has been arrayed as 3rd accused. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed by the respondent and the same has been taken on file as Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2010 by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Puducherry. Now, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking to quash the charge-sheet as against him.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is a Notary Public and he has been arrayed as A3 in this case. The allegation against the petitioner herein is that the petitioner, being a Notary Public, attested the ante-dated agreement as if he attested on 07.04.2008, knowing fully well that the said agreement was not entered between the respective parties in his presence and he further fabricated the Notary Register in support of his attestation. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation with regard to the attestation of the petitioner would fall within the purview of the official duty of the petitioner, as a Notary Public, under the Notaries Act. When that being so, there is a bar under Section 13 of the Notaries Act, to take cognizance against the Notary, unless the complaint in writing is made by an officer authorised by the Central Government or State Government by general or special order in this behalf. In the present case, since there is no specific order to that effect as required under Section 13 of the Notaries Act, the complaint is liable to be quashed. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments delivered by this Court in Crl.O.P.No. 25534 of 2007, dated 04.03.2010, (K. Ramakrishnan v. Rajesh Kataria) and Crl.R.C.(MD).No.206 of 2014, dated 16.09.2014 (V. Ramakrishnan v. State through its Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai).