Complaint not needed to prosecute notary: the Kerala High Court has held that a notary who allegedly forges a document and certifies it falsely is not shielded by the requirement of a government-authorised complaint under the Notaries Act, 1952.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Kochi: The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition by an advocate-notary seeking to quash a vigilance case in which he is the eighth accused for allegedly attesting a backdated consent letter used in the grant of a building permit, holding that Section 13(1) of the Notaries Act, 1952 protects only acts done in the discharge of notarial functions and not alleged forgery or concealment [P. Imbichi Koya v. State of Kerala and Another].
Justice A. Badharudeen heard the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and, in an order dated September 24, 2026, vacated any interim stay and left the Special Court, Kozhikode, free to proceed with the trial. The allegations are untested, the Court has expressed no view on the merits of the prosecution case, and the presumption of innocence applies to all the accused.
The case
The petitioner, P. Imbichi Koya, an advocate and notary from Malaparamba, Kozhikode, is Accused No. 8 in Crime No. 3/2014 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kozhikode, now pending as C.C. No. 29/2023 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode. The final report charges Accused Nos. 1 to 9 under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and under Sections 466, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, a consent letter relied on for a building permit was attested by the petitioner as notary and shown as executed in 2009, though it was allegedly prepared in 2011. The alleged executant is said to have stated that he never appeared before the notary and never signed it. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner did not enter the execution in the Notarial Register, which it says points to an attempt to conceal the alleged forgery.
The contentions
The petitioner argued that under Section 13(1) of the Notaries Act no court can take cognizance of an offence by a notary in the exercise of notarial functions without a written complaint from an officer authorised by the government, here the Secretary, Law Department, and that none was made. He relied on the single-judge decisions in V.P. Jyolsna v. State of Kerala and Malu K. v. State of Kerala.
The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, contended that the protection extends only to acts done in the lawful or purported discharge of notarial functions, and that forgery and concealment of the entry fall outside it.
What the Court said
Accepting the State’s position, the Court held that forging a document is not a notarial act:
“Forging a document by a Notary could not be held to be an act done by a Notary in the exercise”
It added that executing a document in the absence of the party said to have executed it stands on the same footing, so Section 13(1) is not attracted:
“the execution of a document by a Notary in the absence of the party executing the same”
On the role of intent, the Court explained that the protection turns on the notary’s state of mind:
“the protection is available to a Notary when his mens rea in committing the offence”
(Quoted passages are partial extracts from the order.) The Court found that criminal intent was prima facie foreseeable from the allegation that the execution was left out of the Notarial Register, and that a notary who acts with such intent cannot claim the statutory shield. It noted that no straitjacket formula applies and that each case depends on whether the act was done while exercising or purporting to exercise notarial functions.
The directions
Concluding that “this petition is dismissed”, the Court vacated any interim stay, permitted the Special Court, Kozhikode, to proceed with the trial, and directed the Registry to forward a copy of the order to that Court.
Why the order matters
The ruling clarifies the limits of the special complaint requirement in the Notaries Act. The safeguard exists to protect notaries from prosecution for acts done in the course of their functions, but the Court holds that it does not extend to offences allegedly committed with criminal intent, such as preparing a backdated document or certifying an execution that did not take place.
The order also shows how the earlier Single Bench decisions are being read. Where the allegation is that a notary acted outside the statutory scheme, a complaint by an authorised government officer is not a precondition for cognizance, though the allegations remain to be proved at trial.
Case Title: P. Imbichi Koya v. State of Kerala and Another [Crl.M.C. No. 6240 of 2026]
Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
Date of Order: September 24, 2026
Appearances: Advocates S. Radhakrishnan, S. Rajmohan, Aditya Thejus Krishnan and Aswathy P.V. for the petitioner; Senior Public Prosecutor K. Biju for the respondents