H. N. SETH, J.:-Board of Revenue has made this reference under Sec.57(1) of the Stamp Act. Originally following two questions were referred by the Board for the opinion of this Court:-

(1) Whether the document as a whole is a security cum indemnity bond falling under Articles 34 and 57 Schedule I-B of the U.P. Stamp Amendment Act. 1958 and is liable to duty of Rs.18 only as contended by the Mills, or

(2) Whether the document executed by Sri. Gangadhar Adukiya constituted a bond for Rs.10,80,260/- chargeable with duty of Rs.16,057.50 under Article 15 Schedule I-B of the U.P. Stamp (Amendment Act, 1958) and the document executed by Sarvasri Kunj and executed by Sarvasri Kunj Behari Lal and others amounts to security bond chargeable with a separate duty of Rs.18 under Article 57 of Schedule I-B.

Subsequently, by its order dated May 22, 1970 this Court required the Board of Revenue to make such additions or alterations in the statement of the case prepared by it as were necessary for the purpose of deciding the question whether the document executed by Gangadhar Adukiya was in the nature of indemnity bond falling under Article 34 Schedule I-B of the U.P. Stamp Amendment Act, 1958 chargeable with a duty of Rs.18/- only?

2. The Board has now re-submitted the statement of the case, dated 11th of September, 1970 and has referred two more questions in addition to those which had already been referred by it. The Additional questions are as follows:-

(3) Whether the document executed by Sri Gangadhar Adukiya is in the nature of an indemnity bond falling under Article 34 Schedule I-B ibid, chargeable with a duty of Rs.18/- and the document executed by Sarvasri Kuni Behari Lal and others is a security bond chargeable under Art.57., Sch.I-B ibid with a separate duty of Rs.18/-, (4) If the documents under reference do not fall under any of the above alternatives, what should be deemed to be their nature for purposes of stamp duty under the Stamp Act and what stamp duty is payable in respect of them.

3. The circumstances in which this reference came to be made may now be stated in brief. Hindustan Sugar Mill Ltd. was assessed to Sales Tax for the assessment year 1957-58. It went up in appeal and applied to Judge (Revision) Sales Tax U.P. for staying the realisation of the sales tax assessed. On 23rd April 1962, the Judges (Revisions) made an order restraining the realisation of Sales tax due from Messrs. Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. on condition that Messrs. Hindustan Sugar Mills furnished security for a sum of Rupees 10,70,260 to the satisfaction of the Sales Tax Officer. In order to comply with the restraint order passed by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Sri Gangadhar Adukiya executed a document dated 20th of May, 1962. The document executed by Gangadhar Adukiya was followed by a joint declaration made by Kunj Behari Lal Rathi and Nanak Chand Agnihotri declaring themselves to be sureties for Sri Gangadhar Adukiya and guaranteeing that Adukiya would perform all that he had undertaken to do and perform and in case of default these two persons bound themselves jointly and severally to forfeit to the Governor of U.P. the sum of Rs.10,70,260/-. For facility of reference a copy of the document executed by Gangadhar Adukiya, Kunj Behari Lal and Nanak Chand is being made Annexure I to this judgment.

4. Gangadhar Adukiya executed this document per pro the Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. on a stamp paper of Rs.18/-. During routine inspection of the Sales Tax Office, the Inspector of Stamps and Registration, impounded the document executed by Gangadhar Adukiya and levied a duty of Rs.16057.50 treating that document as a bond liable to stamp duty under Article 15 of Schedule I-B of the Stamp Act. The matter was taken up to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that the document in question consisted of two distinct instruments, namely the one executed by Sri Adukiya which was a bond for a sum of Rupees 10.70,260 liable to duty