(Thakur) Ranjit Singh vs Behrauji

Chaturvedi, J.—A pronote was produced in evidence in the Court of the Civil Judge, First Class, Mhow. The promote was not on impressed stamp but was on four annas revenue stamp of Government of India. The Defendant objected diat it was not duly stamped and should not be taken in evidence. The Plaintiff tool it to the Collector who, u/s 36 of the Indore Stamp Act (which corresponds to Section 37 of the Indian Stamp Act), alter payment of tins duly, coitiliod it to be duly, stamped. The Court below then, admitted it in evidence. The Defendant has come in revision against this order and urges that the Collector had no jurisdiction to certify it and that the Court had no jurisdiction to admit it in evidence as it was an invalid document.

Mr. Garg relies on Ref. u/s 57 of Act No. 2 of 1899, ILR 23 All 213 (A): a Full Bench case. But I think after the observations of the Privy Council in Ma Pwa May v. Chettiar Firm 56 Ind App 379: (AIR 1929 PC 279) (B) the Allahabad view expressed in ILR 23 All 213 (A) must be taken to have been overruled, Their Lordships observed:

The contention to the contrary is that the Section (Section 37) has no reference to any stamp except a revenue stamp pure and simple, and that a revenue stamp surcharged ''Court-fee'' is not within the meaning of the Section a stamp of improper description This appears to their Lordships to be putting too narrow a construction upon a remedial section, and their Lordships would not bo prepared to assent to the opinion of the High Court of Allahabad in ILR 23 All 213 (A) so far as it concerns court-fee stamps in then present form.

It is obvious that the section has been hold to be remedial one only, and Section 37 of the Indian Stamp Act (Section 36 of the Indore Stamp Act) makes the Collector''s certificate final as to the admissibility in evidence of a document, so far as its admissibility depends on its being duly stamped. It has been held in several cases that the duty to be paid on such promissory notes is a fiscal one and must be decided by the Collector. The Collector may, if he so wishes, refer the matter to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority u/s 56, but that is in his discretion Kedarmal Raghunath v. Ratiram AIR 1935 Nag 54 (C) and that a Civil Court has no power to review the certificate Tukaram v. Sonaji 10 Ind Cas 702 (Nag)(D) and Firm Faiasram Hirji v. Firm of Parasram Hassanand AIR 1920 Sind 211 (E).

In my opinion it was open to Mr. Garg to appear before the Collector and to satisfy him that he had no jurisdiction u/s 36 of the Indore Stamp Act which failed to do.

In 10 Ind Cas 702 (Nag) (D) winch still remains the leading case on the subject, it was mentioned that the word ''stamp'' is not defined in the stamp Act and that the object of the Act is not to exclude evidence or to enable parties to avoid their obligation technical grounds, but to obtain re-venue for the Government of India. It was further observed that:

When, the duty payable on an instrument is one anna has been paid to the Government by the Purchase of a Government stamp of that mount though not of the description which under the act and should be used for the instrument in question then in our opinion, the instrument bears a stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description should not be classed as unstamped though the stamp used, instead of being a wrong description revenue stamp a term not used in the stamp the happens to be a stamp of some other department of the same Government, whether judicial postal forest or telegraph. Tin''s view seems to us in accordance with equity and supported by the fact that only is there no definition of the word stamp or use file term revenue stamp'' in the stamp act but that rules that have been, made under that Act allow the use of postage stamps in certain cases and of, court-fee stamps in others.

Applying these principles to the present case if the object of the Stamp Act is to obtain revenue for the Government, then the contention of Mr. Garg that the stamp of Madhya Bharat was not used falls to the ground; for fiscal purposes today there is no difference between the Government of India and the State of Madhya Bharat. If it is not a Stamp of Madhya Bharat. Government and is a revenue stamp of the Government of India, at the most it is ''a stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description'' within the meaning of Section 36 of the Indore Stamp Act (which Corresponds to Section 37 of Indian Stamp Act), and can be certified to be duly stamped by the Collector within the meaning of this section.

Mr. Garg then places reliance on Chotey Lal Vs. Girraj Kishore and Another, a judgment of a Single Judge (Daniels J.) for the proposition that conclusive presumption laid down in Sub-section (2) of Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act does not apply to an instrument where the certificate is without jurisdiction. In this case the Plaintiff had sued on a (sic); a one anna stamp which was not can, celled. The Trial Court held that hundi was not receivable in evidence under the provisions of the Stamp Act and impounded it and sent it to the Col lector. The Collector imposed a penalty and improperly endorsed the document us sufficiently stamped; purporting to act u/s 40 of the Indian Stamp Act. This section expressly excludes instruments chargeable with a duty of one anna. It was, therefore, held in this case that the Collector''s certificate was not a Certificate given in accordance with the'' provisions of the section, and the conclusive presumption laid down in Sub-section (2) would not apply to it.

In this connection, two points may be noted. The first is that there is no such mistake in the present ease which may be apparent on the face of the record as was in the Allahabad case. The second point is that the Allahabad case conflicts with another decision of a Division Bench of the same High Court Girdhari Das v. Jagan Nath ILR 3 All 115(G) pronounced with reference to Section 32. It was held in that" case by Sir Robert Stuart C.J. and Mr. Justice Old- field that once an endorsement has been made on the pronote by the Collector that the full duty with which it is chargeable has been paid even when the section did not authorise the Collector to make any such endorsement on promissory notes, yet this will only be an irregularity in making such an endorsement, the remedy for which will be by appeal or revision to the Chief revenue authority u/s 40, but it will not prevent the admission of the document as evidence, for it has been clearly provided in the Stamp Act that the instrument shall on endorsement be deemed to be duly stamped and shall be receivable in evidence as if originally executed on paper bearing the proper stamp. This decision of the Division Bench was probably not brought before Justice Daniels in AIR 1026 All 359 (F).

Mr. Garg places reliance upon the words of Section 36 of the Indore Stamp Act which says that

the Government may make rules providing that whether an instrument bears stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description, it may, on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable,'' be certified to be duly stamped, and any instrument so certified shall "then be deemed to have been duly" stamped as from the date of its execution.

The learned Counsel pointed out that the Government had not made rules when the Collector validated the document and that the rules came into force in April, 1953 only. I think there is some misunderstanding on the point. The Indore Stamp Act was adopted by the Madhya Bharat Government in January 1950 (See Act No. 5 of 1950). It was made clear in that Act that the rules made under the Act would remain in force till they have been cancelled by other rules made afterwards. It follows that the rules made under the Indore Stamp Act, so far as Indore was concerned, continued to be in force; and according to those rules the Collector had power to certify by endorsement on the instrument that the particular instrument was duly stamped. I, therefore, see no force in Mr. Garg''s contention.

The legislature has clearly given the Collector''s validation retrospective effect; and once an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question, at any subsequent stage.

In this view of the matter, I would dismiss this revision in limine.