This is an application made within one year from the date of the payment for revision of a penalty under sec. 45 of the Indian Stamp Act.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The relevant facts of the case are not much in dispute. Balabux Amarchand applicants executed a mortgage deed without possession in favour of the former Ajmer State Government on a nonjudicial stamp of Re. 1/- only and the same was registered by the Sub-Registrar, Ajmer on 24.7.54. It appears that subsequent to the registration the Sub-Registrar served a notice upon the applicants oh 11.10.54 to show cause as to why a penalty in respect of deficient stamp duty be not charged from them in respect of the aforesaid mortgage deed. It does not appear from the record as to whether any objections were raised by the applicants or not before the Sub-Registrar and if so with what effect. The Sub-Registrar, however, "impounded" the document and forwarded the same to the Collector under S. 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act for necessary action. The Collector by his order dated 15.1.55 held that there was a deficiency of Rs. 596/8/-in the stamp duty inasmuch as the mortgage being for Rs. 1,19,041 should have been on a stamp p»per of Rs.597/8/- and as it was written on 1 rupee stamp only the deficiency of Rs.596/8/-along with an equal amount as penalty should be paid by the applicants. This order was passed by the back of the applicants and hence they applied to the Collector for a review of the same. This review petition was rejected on 25.4.55 on the ground that the law provided no review. The applicants thereafter paid the entire amount of deficiency and penalty on 27.5.55 and applied for its refund on 15.7.55. Before any final decision could be taken in the matter the State of Ajmer merged with that of Rajasthan and hence this case has come to the Board which is the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for the State under the Indian Stamp Act.

3. The circumstances that have been stated above make it clear that the Sub-Registrar was not justified in impounding the document or moving the Collector under sec. 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act. Sec. 38 lays down that when the person impounding an instrument under sec. 33 as by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and admits of such instrument in evidence upon payment of a penalty as provided by sec. 35 or of duty as provided by sec. 37 he shall send to the Collector an authenticated copy of such instrument. In every other case the person impounding an instrument shall send it in original to the Collector. Sec. 33 (1) runs as follows :-

Examination and impounding of instrument.—Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person incharge of a public office, except an officer of Police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same.

4. This provision relates to the examination and impounding of instruments not duly stamped. Under this section persons having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and public officers are required to examine documents that are produced or which come before them in the performance of their functions and to impound them if in their opinion they are not duly stamped. A court has no power to impound a document after the case has been disposed of and it has become functus officio. This principle also applies to the other persons mentioned in sec. 33 and thus where a document which is not duly stamped has been registered and returned to the party it is not subsequently open to the Registrar to send for the deed and impound it. We may refer to A.I.R. 1932 Lahore 495. In that case a Registrar required the production of a document on the ground that it was not duly stamped after it had been registered and delivered to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document