The Kerala High Court has declined to quash a vigilance case against a notary public. It held that the protection under the Notaries Act does not cover the alleged act of certifying a document in the absence of the person said to have signed it. Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the petition filed by P. Imbichi Koya, the eighth accused in a case linked to the grant of a building permit.
Background
The petitioner, an advocate and notary from Kozhikode, is facing trial in C.C. No. 29/2023 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kozhikode. As per the final report, nine accused are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 466, 468, 471, 477A and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with the grant of a building permit. He approached the High Court seeking to set aside the final report and all further proceedings against him.
His counsel relied on Section 13(1) of the Notaries Act, 1952. It bars courts from taking cognizance of an offence by a notary in exercising or purporting to exercise his functions, unless a written complaint is made by an officer authorised by the government. Since no such complaint was filed, it was argued, the prosecution could not stand. The petitioner also cited earlier Kerala High Court rulings, including V.P. Jyolsna v. State of Kerala and Malu K. v. State of Kerala.
The Public Prosecutor submitted that a consent letter was attested without the consent of its alleged signatory. It was further alleged that the notary himself committed forgery and deliberately did not record the letter in his Notarial Register, so as to suppress the act.
The Court explained that Section 13 protects a notary for official acts and shields him from false prosecution over them, but does not extend to acts outside his statutory functions. It noted that the witness named as the signatory, Rajan Nair, had told the police that neither he nor his siblings ever visited the notary's office, though the letter was shown as executed on 02.11.2009. The Court said:
"If so, the execution of a document by a Notary in the absence of the party executing the same is not an act to be construed as one while exercising or purporting to exercise the functions of a Notary, and the same is outside the scope of Section 13(1) of the Notaries Act."
The Court added that no straight-jacket formula can be laid down that every offence connected with a notary's work gets protection under Section 13.
Holding that the plea based on Section 13(1) would not succeed on the facts of the case, the Court dismissed the petition. It vacated any interim stay and gave the Special Court, Kozhikode, liberty to proceed with the trial.
The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to that court.
Case Details
Case Title: P. Imbichi Koya v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 6240 of 2026
Judge: Justice A. Badharudeen
Decision Date: 24 September 2026
