Court Rules Section 13(1) Protection of Notaries Act Not Applicable When Notary Acts with Criminal Intent Beyond Statutory Duties
In a significant judgment dated September 24, 2026, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, dismissed the petition filed by a Notary Public, P. Imbichi Koya, seeking to quash criminal proceedings against him. The case pertains to allegations that the Notary attested a forged consent letter without the presence or consent of the alleged executant and concealed the forgery by omitting entries in the Notarial Register.
The petitioner, arrayed as the eighth accused in a criminal case involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), contended that proceedings against him were unlawful for want of a written complaint by an authorized officer as mandated under Section 13(1) of the Notaries Act, 1952. This section stipulates that no court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a Notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Act except upon a written complaint by an authorized government officer.
The petitioner argued that since no such authorized complaint was filed, the case against him should be quashed. However, the State countered that the acts alleged were committed with criminal intent and were wholly outside the statutory functions of a Notary. Specifically, it was submitted that notarizing a consent letter without the executant's presence and deliberately failing to record the transaction in the Notarial Register constituted forgery and abuse of official position.
Justice Badharudeen relied on precedent, including the Kerala High Court decision in V.P. Jyolsna v. State of Kerala (2021), which clarified the scope of Section 13(1) protection. The Court emphasized that the protection under Section 13(1) is confined to bona fide official acts done in the exercise or purported exercise of statutory functions without mens rea (criminal intent). When a Notary acts beyond his official duties with intent to commit a crime, such protection does not apply.
The Court noted that the prosecution's prima facie case showed the Notary had mens rea and participated in forgery by certifying a document in the absence of the alleged executant and suppressing the transaction in official records. Such actions fall outside the protective umbrella of Section 13(1). The Court further held that the legislative intent behind Section 13(1) is to shield Notaries from false prosecution for bona fide acts, not to provide impunity for criminal acts committed under the guise of official functions.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, allowing the trial against the Notary to proceed before the Special Court, Kozhikode. The interim stay on proceedings was vacated, and the registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to the Special Court for compliance.
This judgment is a crucial precedent clarifying that Notaries cannot claim immunity under Section 13(1) of the Notaries Act when alleged to have committed forgery or other criminal acts with mens rea beyond their official statutory duties. It serves as a stern reminder that the statutory protection is not a blanket safeguard against prosecution for criminal misconduct.
Bottom Line:
Notaries Act, 1952 Section 13(1) Protection against cognizance without written complaint by authorised officer is available only in respect of acts done by a Notary in exercise or purported exercise of statutory functions - Where prosecution allegation is that Notary attested execution of consent letter in absence of executant, participated in forgery and omitted entries in Notarial Register to screen himself, such act is outside official functions and bar under Section 13(1) is inapplicable.
Statutory provision(s):
Notaries Act, 1952 Section 13(1); Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2); Indian Penal Code Sections 466, 468, 471, 477A, 120B
P. Imbichi Koya v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2993427
