ANIL KUMAR GAUBHUJ Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Susner, District Shajapur in Sessions Trial No. 18/2014, dated 16-3-2015 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the present applicant under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision are that complainant-Rajendra Khandelwal filed a written complaint against present applicant alongwith other co-accused, on which Crime No. 128/2014 was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. According to the complainant, the accused prepared a forged agreement relating to survey No. 158/4 area 1.045 hectare, survey No. 343/2 area 0.178 hectare and survey No. 344/1/1 area 1.280 hectare belonging to the complainant. Such forged agreement was used against the complainant in various Courts. On this complaint, after investigation, charge sheet was filed by Police Station, Nalkheda, District Agar (Malwa) on 16-12-2014. By the impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judged framed charges against the present applicant. Aggrieved by which this revision has been filed.

(2.) According to the present applicant, he was working as notary public and in that capacity, he registered the alleged forged agreement on serial No. 313. The agreement was purported to have been entered into between Tulsiram and Ramesh Gir. The stamp was purchased by Tulsiram and Ramesh Gir from the stamp vendor Devendra Singh Sengar. The date of purchase entered on the stamp was 13-8-2010 and it was registered by the present applicant on 30-10-2010. According to the applicant, under Section 8 of the Notaries Act, 1952, verifying, authenticating, certifying, attesting the execution of any instrument is included in the function provided under the Act.

(3.) Thereafter, in the complaint filed by the complainant, it was stated that stamp was issued by Government treasury on 27-11-2010, i.e., after it was registered by the present applicant. However, during the investigation, it was not taken into consideration by the Investigating Officer that number of stamp was N-757142 that is the number of the stamp on which the said agreement was executed but, in the complaint number was written as 757142. According to the applicant, under Section 13, cognizance of any offence against notary public cannot be taken by the Magistrate unless the complaint is filed by the authorised officer. In Rule 13 of Notary Rules, 1956, procedure for conducting the enquiry against notary public has been provided for. This procedure was not followed in case of the present applicant.