( 1 ) HEARD Mr. N. Ravi Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also Mr. J. P. Srikanth, the learned amicus curiae appointed by the Court to assist the Court.

( 2 ) THE revision is filed by the petitioner-third party claimant in EA No. 286/ 2000 in EA No. 212/2000 in EP No. 143/97 in SC No. 83/91 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur. The application was filed requesting the Court to send a document, an agreement of sale, dated 21. 10. 1986 for impounding the stamp duty and penalty to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur. The decree-holder had filed a detailed counter and had resisted the matter. The Court below by an order dated 24. 11. 2000 had directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty on or before 5. 12. 2000 and at that stage an application was filed requesting the Court to send document for the purpose of impounding and the Court below had dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the said order, dated 15. 12. 2000, made in EA No. 286/2000 in EA No. 212/2000 in EP No. 143/97 in SC No. 83/91 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, this revision is filed.

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that in an application filed by the revision petitioner, a request was made to send the document to the Revenue Divisional officer for the purpose of impounding. Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 deals with examination and impounding of instruments and Section 35 of the said Act deals with the aspect of instruments not duly stamped as inadmissible in evidence, etc. Section 38 of the said Act deals with instruments impounded how dealt with which reads as follows: 38. Instruments impounded how dealt with : (1) When the person impounding an instrument under Section 33 has, by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and admits such instrument in evidence upon payment of a penalty as provided by Section 35 or of duty as provided by Section 37, he shall send to the Collector, an authenticated copy of such instruments, together with a certificate in writing, stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof, and shall send such amount to the Collector, or to such person as he may appoint in this behalf. (2) In every other case, the person so impounding an instrument shall send it in original to the Collector.

( 4 ) IT is pertinent to note that subsection (2) of Section 38 of the Act specifically says that in every other case, the person so impounding an instrument shall send it in original to the Collector. In Khwaja Zaheeruddin v. Fathima Begum and others, (CRP No. 347/82 dated 28. 6. 1982) it was held that a close scrutiny of Sections 33 and 38 (1) of Indian Stamp Act reveals that at the time proximate to induction of evidence, the concerned authority is clothed with the power to levy duty and it is only when the authority is seized of the matter in the course of admitting the document in evidence the authority will have the necessary opportunity and facility to examine the purport and implications of the document for the purpose of determining the levy of correct duty and in Sections 33 and 38 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act the focus is upon the time of reception of evidence and Section 33 of the said Act connotes the levy of duty at the time when it is ripe for admission of document as evidence and Section 38 (1) of the Act envisages the document to be sent to Collector after evidence and before the matter is ripe for evidence, if a petition is filed to send the document to the Collector for levy of proper stamp duty, the Court has to accede to this request pursuant to Section 38 (2) of the Act. In Indurupalli Ramanaiha v. Somisetti Radhakrishnaiah, 1979 (1) ALT 155, while dealing with the scope and ambit of Sections 33, 35, 38, 40 and 42 of the Indian Stamp Act, it was held that where a party requesting the impounding, the Court to send a document, which is not duly stamped but is intended to be admitted in evid