ARVIND KUMAR CHOKHRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a legal practitioner at Makrana and having been appointed as Notary at registration No. 1738, seeks to question by way of this writ petition the summons (Annex. 8)issued to him by the Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Makrana to appear as a witness in Criminal Case No. 38/2005.

(2.) THE petitioner has averred that on 25. 04. 2005, he notarised an agreement between two persons: one Mohammed Iqbal son of Nawab Ali and another Manish jhanwar son of Hukmi Chand Jhanwar and made an entry in that behalf at serial numbers 353/6 and 354/6 in the register statutorily required to be maintained by him; that some dispute arose between the parties to the said agreement and the said Manish kumar filed a criminal complaint alleging offences under Section 420, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); and that the complaint was considered by the Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana and directions were given under Section 156 (3)of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C.)to the concerned Police Station to investigate whereupon an FIR was registered bearing number 219/2004. The petitioner has pointed out that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer issued him notice (Annex. 4) and then, recorded his statement (Annex. 5) under Section 161 cr. P. C. ; and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet (Annex. 6) was filed on 21. 12. 2004. The petitioner has further pointed out that by the order dated 20. 4. 2006 the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame the charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against the accused Mohammed iqbal and while doing so, observed that existence of the said agreement was not in dispute.

(3.) THE petitioner submits that the complainant never cited him as a witness in the list submitted before the Trial Court and then, the Trial Court also found that there was no dispute in relation to the agreement and contends that there was no occasion to call him as a witness. The petitioner states that he has been singled out for harsh treatment by being summoned as a witness. While relying on the decision of the Hon'ble punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Banarsi Dass v. Mamah Chand it is submitted that a Notary is to perform very many functions including verification, authentication, and attestation of the documents and, as his attestation is to be taken as conclusive evidence, the Notary who had recorded the certificate of attestation is not required to be called as a witness. Section 58 of the Evidence Act has also been referred to submit that the admitted facts are not required to be proved. The petitioner has essentially prayed for the reliefs that the notice (Annex. 4) and summons (Annex. 8)may be quashed and that his name may be deleted from the list of witnesses in the said criminal Case No. 38/2005.