Offence under Sections 27 and 64.

This criminal revision case is preferred against the conviction and sentence in C.C. No. 10 of 1951 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kollegal, from which C.A.No. 1 of 1952, was filed before the Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, wherein the conviction was confirmed and the sentence was modified.

The facts are: One Chinna Malappa executed a settlement deed Ex. P-10 on 29th July, 1950. It was written by Venkataswami Aiya, karnam of Ikkadahalli village, Kollegal taluk. The document was registered as No. 1937 of 1950 of Book I of the Sub-Registrar of Kollegal. The value of the property as set forth in the document is Rs. 2,000. The District Registrar initiated the prosecution of both these persons under section 27 read with section 64 of the Indian Stamp Act on the foot that the property had been grossly under-valued. The executant died on 2nd August, 1950. The case against him abated. The enquiry proceeded against this scribe only. Both the Courts below found that this accused was guilty as charged and sentenced him to pay a fine. The Additional First Class Magistrate fined him Rs. 100 and the Sessions Judge reduced it to Rs. 50.

This conviction is challenged in this criminal revision case on the following grounds, viz., (a) that there has been no valid sanction for the institution of the complaint, and (b) that the circumstances alleged against this scribe do not make out the offence contemplated by section 27 and section 64 of the Indian Stamp Act.

Point (a): There is no substance in this point because though it is quite true that originally under the Standing Orders 101 and 102, embodied in the Madras Stamp Manual containing the Indian Stamp Act and the Court-fees Act, with the Notifications issued thereunder and the Board’s Standing Orders connected therewith (4th Edn. 1933) only Collectors and Revenue Divisional Officers are found to have been authorised under section 70 of the Indian Stamp Act to sanction prosecutions in respect of offences punishable under the Stamp Act. Subsequently the District Registrars have also been so authorised. Ex. P-12 is the copy of the G.O. Ms. No. 3306, Revenue, dated 28th December, 1949, in which the Local Government accepted the recommendation of the Board of Revenue to authorise the District Magistrate under section 70 of the Indian Stamp Act to sanction prosecution. Ex. P-13 is copy of the proceedings of the Board of Revenue, Ref. No. 3129-50, dated 17th May, 1950, empowering District Magistrate to sanction prosecution. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention about the want of proper sanction for the complaint being launched by the District Registrar.

Point (b): I shall now briefly consider the scope of sections 27 and 64 and Article 58 of the Indian Stamp Act to find out whether the facts of the instant case make out the offence for which the revision petitioner has been convicted.

Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act requires that the consideration and other facts and circumstances which affect the stamp duty payable must be stated in the instrument. In the case of a settlement deed, the Article applicable is 58. The duty has to be paid on the amount or value of the property settled as set forth in such settlement. It is unnecessary to trace the chequered interpretations of this phrase “as set forth in such settlement” because we have the authoritative Full Bench decision of this Court in Board of Revenue v. Venkatarama Aiyar1, wherein the previous decisions in Reference under Stamp Act, Sec. 462, Reference under Stamp Act, Sec. 463 and Reference under Stamp Act, Sec. 464 of this High Court and the decisions of the other High Courts have been referred to. This Full Bench decision affirmed the view that stamp duty should be calculated on the value shown in the document itself. But at the same time it was held in that case that although the Registrar before whom a document is presented for registration cannot embark on the independent enquiry regarding the value of