P. John Samuel vs State of Tamil Nadu

Markandey Katju, C.J.—This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 21-9-2004 passed by the learned single Judge,

dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the records.

The appellant is a lawyer, practising in the courts at Saidapet. He was also a Notary, having been appointed by the respondent under the

Notaries Act, 1956 and authorised to practise in the city of Madras. He was charged with the allegation that he violated the provisions of Rule

11(8) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 by leaving two blank Rs.20/- non-judicial stamp papers, bearing his signature and seal with the expression

signed before me"", with a document-writer, which were seized by the Vigilance Department. An enquiry was held into the matter and the

appellant was found guilty. His notary certificate was cancelled and consequently, he was perpetually debarred from practising as Notary. He filed

a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge, against which the present writ appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Rule 12(b)(i) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 provides for imposing three different kinds of

punishments for the misconduct committed by a Notary. Hence, a second opportunity of hearing on the quantum of punishment should have been

given to the appellant before imposing the major punishment of cancellation of his Notary Certificate. We do not agree. There is no such legal

principle that a second opportunity of hearing must be given on the quantum of punishment, unless the relevant statute or the statutory rules

specifically provides for the same. For instance, in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there is a specific provision, viz. Sec. 235(2), which

reads as follows:

If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of Section 360, hear the accused on the

question of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law.

Thus, Sec. 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides that when a court finds an accused guilty of the offence charged against

him, a second opportunity of hearing shall be given to him on the question of sentence. There is no such provision either in the Notaries Act or in

the Notaries Rules which requires a second opportunity of hearing on the question of quantum of punishment. Hence, merely because Rule 12(b)(i)

of the Notaries Rules provides for imposition of three different kinds of punishment, it does not mean that a second opportunity of hearing on the

quantum of punishment must be given to the delinquent before the punishment is imposed on him.

Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the punishment imposed on the appellant is disproportionate as the appellant had not

earlier committed any such misconduct and this mitigating circumstance was not taken into consideration before his Notary certificate was

cancelled. We do not agree. The misconduct for which the appellant was punished, in our opinion, was very serious. The act of the appellant in

leaving two blank Rs.20/- non-judicial stamp-papers bearing his seal and signature with the expression ""signed before me"" with a document-writer

is certainly a very serious one. To illustrate, the said signed and verified blank stamp-papers can be used by miscreants for creating fake

documents to circumvent the law. For example a person may commit a very serious offence like murder at Madurai and he may, for the purpose of

creating alibi, use these blank stamp-papers, which are duly signed and verified by the appellant, to show that on the date of occurrence, he was at

Chennai. The appellant has not shown any justifiable and acceptable explanation for leaving such stamp-papers with the document-writer. We,

therefore, do not agree that the punishment imposed on the appellant is disproportionate. More over, there is no hard and fast rule that first-time

offender should always be let off with a minor punishment. It depends upon the nature and gravity of the offence and the circumstances of each

case. For instance, a murderer cannot plead that he has committed murder for the first time and, therefore, he should be let off. The offence

committed by the appellant, who is a lawyer by profession and who is supposed to know the implications and seriousness of his act in leaving

signed and verified blank stamp-papers with a document-writer, was undoubtedly a very serious one. We, therefore, do not find any justification to

interfere with the punishment.

The appeal has no force. It is dismissed. Connected WAMP No.1258 of 2005 is closed.