JUDGMENT

Jai Lal J - The petitioner instituted a suit for recovery of money from the respondent who is neither present nor represented before me. The suit was based on a writing which was signed by the defendant. The writing in question is that Rs. 7,687-12-6 is due to the plaintiff from the respondent on account of previous accounts. This document is signed by the defendant. When the plaintiff presented the plaint he also filed, along with the transliteration of the writing mentioned above, the transliteration of two other writings which are of a previous date and relate to different amounts but are substantially in the same terms. It appears that the Stamp Examiner inspected the record and formed an opinion that the three writings in question amounted to three bonds and as each of them bore a stamp of one anna, they were insufficiently stamped and could be admitted only on payment of penalty and the requisite deficiency in stamp duty. This matter having been brought to the notice of the trial Judge be directed the plaintiff to produce the original book in which the writings were contained, tore' off the relevant pages of the book and impounded the documents directing the plaintiff to pay penalty and the balance of the stamp duty, holding that each document was a bond.

2. With regard to the writing for Rupees 7,687-12-6, the petitioner's counsel states that he has already presented this document in Court; he does rely upon it and has paid the penalty but has moved the Financial Commissioner to remit the penalty. With regard to the other two documents, he says that he has never tendered them in evidence and he does not intend to tender them. Their transliterations were merely filed with the plaint to be used in case of necessity and this necessity has not and would not arise. He therefore says that the learned Senior Subordinate Judge was not competent to impound the document and to direct the payment of duty and penalty under Section 33, Stamp Act. That section provides that every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and person in charge 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.

3. The question is whether under the circumstances mentioned above the two documents, other than the document for Rs. 7,687-12-6 were produced or came before the Senior Subordinate Judge in the performance of his functions. In my opinion, they did not. The mere production of a copy of the document without an attempt to prove it or without an attempt to tender it formally in evidence does not amount to the production of the document before the person concerned. Nor does the document under such circumstances come before the person concerned in the performance of his functions. I also consider that all the three documents mentioned do not fall within the definition of "bond." They are merely acknowledgments of liability for the purposes of the Stamp Act. They do not contain any express promise to pay, they are not attested by witnesses, but they merely record the fact that the amounts mentioned in them were due from the plaintiff to the defendant on account of previous accounts; they are nothing more than acknowledgments and are liable to duty as such. The duty on an acknowledgment is one anna and consequently if the documents in question bear a stamp of one anna each, they must be held to be duly stamped. The question relating to the documents mentioned first above is not before me. It is before the learned Financial Commissioner. I therefore pass no orders about it. With regard to the other two documents, I accept the petition and set aside the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge holding that they are bonds and direct that the penalty and the deficiency in stamp duty, if recovered from the petitioner, be r