Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

1. The writ petitioner/appellant along with his mother resides in the United States of America. They have some properties in the State of Kerala. The mother being old, she had, in the State of Texas, USA, executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the appellant in respect of certain properties. This Power of Attorney executed in the USA had endorsement of the Indian Consulate in the U.S. On the strength of the Power of Attorney, the appellant executed several transfer deeds in respect of the properties in India.

2. It appears that in relation to certain transactions, when the said Power of Attorney was produced before the State Bank of Travancore, Punalur Branch, the appellant was informed that it is not duly stamped and accordingly it cannot be acted upon. The appellant then approached the first respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam, who is the Collector as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 (the Act for short), seeking an adjudication whether it is properly stamped or not. The first respondent merely stated that the Power of Attorney could not be stamped as it was time barred. It is this decision that has been challenged before this Court.

3. We may first refer to Section 18 of the Kerala Stamp Act. It appears that it is with reference to sub-section (2) thereof that the Revenue Divisional Officer held that the three months' period having expired nothing could be done. Section 18 of the Act reads thus:

"18. Instruments executed out of India:-

(1) Every instrument chargeable with duly executed only out of India may be stamped within three months after it has been first received in the State of Kerala.

(2) Where any such instrument cannot, with reference to the description of stamp prescribed therefor, be duly stamped by a private person, it may be taken within the said period of three months to the Collector who shall stamp the same, in such manner as the Government may by rules prescribe, with a stamp of such value as the person so taking such instrument may require and pay for."

We may notice here that the normal rule regarding time of stamping an instrument is specified in Section 17 of the Act. It is to be stamped before or at the time of execution. Section 18 is an exception in relation to instruments executed outside India. It provides for stamping within three months of being first received in India.

4. We may, however, point out that Section 33 of the Act clearly provides that where an instrument chargeable with duty is produced before a person specified in charge of a public office, on which duty as specified is not paid, then such person shall impound and send the same to the Collector. The document having been impounded, Section 34 of the Act provides that an instrument not duly stamped cannot be admitted in evidence. But when comes to Section 39 of the Act, which clearly authorises the Collector to stamp the instrument impounded and once it is stamped with penalty, the consequences under Section 41 of the Act would follow and it becomes a valid instrument for all purposes thereafter.

5. We are indeed surprised that the Revenue Divisional Officer, who should have been aware of these provisions, being the Collector under the Act, has abdicated his duty. Instead of sticking to hyper technicalities, he could very well have indicated to the writ petitioner/appellant that the document being not duly stamped, was required to be impounded and could have asked him to remit the stamp deficit and pay the penalty. Once that was done, the instrument gets its validity again. But instead he chose to keep quiet and dragged the petitioner to the corridors of this Court. The only consequence is that time and money of everybody including this Court has been wasted.

6. However, in view of the aforesaid statutory scheme, we would direct the first respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam to impound the document as and when presented before him and ensure payment of defic