B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is preferred against an endorsement of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, dated 2-3-1981, informing the petitioner that he is not competent to revise the orders passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Guntur, who had impounded certain documents produced by the petitioner hi a suit, and which were sent to the R. D. O. The writ petition arises in the following circumstances:--

( 2 ) PETITIONER is the plaintiff in O. Section No. 17 of 1979, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur. While P. W. 2 was being examined on his behalf, the petitioner (plaintiff) wanted to have three documents admitted in evidence through P. W. 2. Immediately thereupon, an objection was raised by the defendants about the admissibility of the documents under the provisions of the Stamp Act. It appears that the Court, thereupon, sent the original documents to the Collector (Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur), for impounding the same. The R. D. O. , however, returned the documents to the Court stating that, according to law, the documents have to be impounded first by the Court before which they are produced and then sent to the Collector and that, therefore, the documents may be impounded fed first and then sent to him. Accordingly, the Court impounded the documents and determined the stamp duty and penalty payable thereon. The petitioner (plaintiff), instead of paying the duty and penalty and getting the documents admitted in evidence, filed a petition stating that the documents may be sent to the Collector, under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. The original documents were, accordingly, sent to the Collector (R. D. O. ). Before the R. D. O. , the petitioner applied for ascertainment of the stamp duty and penalty leviable thereon. It is on that application that the 1st respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur) made the impugned endorsement.

( 3 ) MR. A. L. Narayana Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the view taken by the 1st respondent in the impugned Memo is not sustainable in law. And I am inclined to agree with him. It is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Stamp Act for this purpose.

( 4 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 33 of the Act says that every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police, shall, if it appears to him that an instrument produced before him is not duly stamped, impound the same. Sub-section (2) makes clear what the impounding means and signifies. It says that, for the purpose of impounding, such person shall examine the instrument to ascertain whether it is duly stamped in accordance with the law obtaining at the time of its execution. Section 35 says that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, nor shall it be acted upon or registered, or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless it is duly stamped, Proviso (a) to this section says that any such instrument can be admitted in evidence on payment of duty with which it is chargeable, ns also penalty, which shall be ten times the duty payable, or the deficit duty payable, as the case may be.

( 5 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 38 then says that when the person or Court impounding a document under Section 33. admits such instrument upon payment of penally as provided in Section 35, he shall send to the Collector an authenticated copy of such instrument, together with a certificate in writing, stating the amount of duty and penalty levied, and also send the amount to him. Sub-section (2) says that in every other case, the person impounding a document shall send the original to the Collector. Since Sections 38 and 40 are crucial to the decision of this case, it would be appropriate to set out these sections in full:-- "38. Instrume

Click Here to Read the rest of this document