ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. A short but important question arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the District Registrar can refuse to levy and collect stamp duty and penalty on a reconstructed document transmitted to him by Civil Court on the ground that the document sent to him is a xerox copy?

2. The factual matter is thus:

(a) The petitioner filed OS No. 136/2005 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam seeking permanent injunction on the strength of the possessory agreement to sell dated 01.09.1995 obtained by him from Pakki Rama Rao and Pakki Narayana Rao. The said possessory agreement to sell, his vendor's registered Sale Deed and Encumbrance Certificate were unfortunately misplaced while they were in the custody of the Trial Court. Hence, learned Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam after obtaining permission from learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings in DIS No. 8870, dated 12.10.2017 and in DIS No. 2247, dated 16.03.2018, reconstructed the documents. Since the possessory agreement to sell was not duly stamped, learned Junior Civil Judge vide his letter dated 28.03.2018 transmitted the reconstructed and unregistered sale agreement dated 01.09.1995 with a request to the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam to impound the same and collect stamp duty and penalty and remit the document to the Court for taking up further proceedings. Since there was no response from the 3rd respondent, learned Judge sent a reminder in DIS No. 624, dated 07.09.2019 but of no avail. Then the matter was informed to the 2nd respondent who is the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and he also addressed a letter in Rc. No. 1377/2018 H3, dated NIL. 10.2019 to the 3rd respondent requesting him to send the report early. Later the 3rd respondent issued proceedings in C. No. 481/G1/2018, dated 11.09.2019 and sent to the Trial Court informing that the xerox copy of unregistered instrument is not admissible for impounding under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act (for short 'the Stamp Act') and therefore, he was not authorized to act on xerox copy of such unregistered instrument. He thus refused to impound the document and collect stamp duty and penalty.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. The 3rd respondent filed counter inter alia contending that a reconstructed document is only a copy, which do not come under the term "instrument" defined under Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act and therefore, under Section 38(2) of the Stamp Act, the 3rd respondent cannot impound and levy stamp duty and penalty, for, stamp duty and penalty can be levied and collected as against the original document but not copies.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, and learned Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration representing the respondents.

5. While learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that since the subject document is a reconstructed document, though it is a xerox copy, the 3rd respondent/District Registrar is obligated to impound the same and levy and collect the proper stamp duty and penalty, in oppugnation, learned Government Pleader would contend, the Stamp Act never envisaged impounding and levying of Stamp Duty on a copy except the original of a document and the definition of "instrument" does not subsume in it the copy other than original and therefore, the question of levying stamp duty and penalty on a xerox copy of a document under Section 38(2) of the Stamp Act does not arise.

6. I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective contentions. The scheme to deal with instruments not duly stamped is provided under Sections 33, 35, 36 and 38. It is pertinent at this juncture to discuss about the substance of those provisions.

(a) Section 33 deals with the examination and impounding of instruments. It says, a duty is cast on every public authority who is authorised to receive evidence or any person in-charge of a public office except officer of police to imp