AYAZ AHAMED KHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the Learned Counsel extensively. The applicant- an Advocate and Notary seeks quashing and setting aside of the criminal proceedings No. 1355/PW/2009 pending on the file of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate's 32nd Court at Bandra, Mumbai, and order dated 4.8.2011 thereby rejecting the discharge application filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner as a Notary-Advocate not arised the document in respect of the owner of the plot-Smt. Vinita Deshpande concerning MHADA allotment. It subsequently revealed that Smt. Vinita Dehapande was abroad at the material time when the document was purportedly not arised, and consequently, the petitioner as a notary has been prosecuted.

(3.) The Investigator has not prosecuted the advocate who has identified the said person before execution of the document or not arising the same. The act of the petitioner as a Notary has no other reason to travel beyond the scope of not arising the document, without there being any personal involvement, to know text or texture of the document or genuineness thereof. He was, while not arising, was not expected to know the genuineness of the party, as it is the Advocate to whom the Notary identifies who has identified the executant.