AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 194 wordsWe do not agree with the Deputy Magistrate that, because a thief cannot give a legal title in regard to a stamp stolen by him, he is incapable of
committing an offence u/s 69 of the General Stamp Act or Section 34 of the Court Fees Act. The words of those sections are,--whoever ""sells or
offers for sale"" any stamp shall be punished, &c., unless be is a person who has been appointed by Government to sell stamps. We think there can
be no doubt but that these words include the case of a thief who exchanges a stolen stamp for a sum of money. We, therefore, set aside the
acquittal. The judgment of the Deputy Magistrate treats the offence as one u/s 69 of the General Stamp Act, but the appeal petition states that it is
one u/s 34 of the Court Fees Act. The stamps are not on the record and we are unable to say against which Act the offence was, in fact,
committed. We therefore do not ourselves pass sentence but direct the Deputy Magistrate to restore the case to his file and dispose of it according
to law.