Ramdoss vs State Rep. By on 14 October, 2015
9.Considering the above decision along with Section 13 of the Notaries
Act, 1952, I am of the view that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings
against the petitioner.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.34 seconds)V.P.Jyolsna vs State Of Kerala on 6 November, 2020
In that decision V. Ranga Ramu v. State [1992(2) ALT
Cri 82] was referred wherein criminal proceedings initiated
against an advocate/notary public without following the
procedure contemplated under Section 13 of the Notaries Act,
1952 was held to be not maintainable and the decision in
Chandmal Motilal Bora v. State of Maharashtra [2004(2) MhLj
41] cited above has been quoted and ultimately it was found that
prosecution has no case that the case against the revision
petitioner was instituted on a complaint made by an officer
authorised by Central Government or State Government. It is
also held that there is a special enactment dealing with the
official acts or purported official acts of the notary, the provision
of the special enactment will prevail over the general law. Hence
for the reason that the case was not instituted on a complaint in
writing made by an officer authorised by the Central government
Crl.M.C.No.4518/2014
12
or the State Government and the condition stipulated in Section
13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 for prosecuting a notary public for
his acts done in exercise of or purported exercise of his functions
under the Act has not been complied with, was held to be a
ground to discharge the petitioner.
Mohammed vs State
[5.2] In
view of the above, the decisions of the learned Single Judge in the
case of Linaben Kantilal
Patel (Supra) and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the
case of V. Ranga Ramu (Supra) would not be of any assistance to the
applicant. Under the circumstances, on the aforesaid ground the
impugned FIR is not required to be quashed and set aside.
Hdfc Bank Limited vs Arvind Kumar & Anr on 22 October, 2024
Further in K.V. Raju v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 12 SCC 566, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that additional evidence can be permitted at the appellate stage if the evidence sought to be adduced is necessary for a complete and proper adjudication of the case.
Sri M G Uthappa S/Olate M.S. Ganapathi vs State Of Karnataka By Ullal Police ... on 25 July, 2013
9. This Court in the case of Ranga Ramu vs. State of
Karnataka reported in 1999 Crl.L.J. 561 and in an
unreported decision in the case of M.G.Uthappa vs. State
by Inspector of Police in Crl.P.No.891/2004 disposed of on
2.9.2004, in the light of Section 13 of the Act has held
that the prosecution launched on the basis of a complaint
filed by a private individual or on the basis of a police
report is not tenable.
Ravindra Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2017
Petitioner claimed protection under Section 13 of the Notaries
Act, which provides that the complaint against the notary can only be
filed by an officer authorized by the Central or State Government by
general or specific order. A complaint by a police officer in this regard
is illegal. Learned counsel placed reliance on V. Ranga Ramu Vs.
State of Karnataka 1999 Cri.L.J. 561.
1