JUDGMENT

1. The opposite party Thakur Mahipal Singh, was summoned as a witness in a criminal case. He was paid Rs. 21 for diet money and filed in Court a document, Ex. 1, acknowledging payment of this amount. This document was not stamped. Subsequently he was prosecuted under- Section 62 (1) (a), Stamp Act. for issuing a receipt without the same being duly stamped. He was convicted by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Bahraich and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10. Mahipal Singh made an application for revision against his conviction and sentence to the Additional Sessions Judge of Bahraich. The learned Judge was of opinion that the conviction was illegal. He has therefore referred the case to this Court for necessary orders. The decision of this case rests on the interpretation to be placed upon the definition of receipt as given in Section 2, Clause 23, Stamp Act (2 of 1899). This definition is as follows:

Receipt includes any note, memorandum of writing (a) whereby any money, or any bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note ia acknowledged to have been received, or (b) whereby any other moveable property is acknowledged to have been received in satisfaction of a debt, or (c) whereby any debt or demand' or any part of a debt or demand, is acknowledged to have been satisfied or discharged, or (d) which signifies or imports any such acknowledgment, and whether the same is or not signed with the name of any person.

2. Section 30, Stamp Act, imposes on every person receiving any payment an obligation to give a receipt on a demand being made by the person making the payment. Section 65 of the Act provides the penalty for refusal to give a receipt on being required to give it under Section 30 or, in other words, on a demand for it being made by the person making the payment. Taking these provisions into consideration, we are of opinion that the intention of the legislature was to make the definition in Section 2 (23) applicable only to instruments executed by the payee in favour of the payer and not to acknowledgments of payment made to a third person.

3. In In the matter of Act 18 of 1869 and of the Uncovenanted Bank Ltd., (1879) 4 Cal 829 a sum of money was paid by one person to a bank to be placed to the credit of another person. The bank sent a memorandum to the person concerned informing him that money had been paid to his account by the person who had made the payment and that it had been credited to his account. It was held that the bank memorandum did not require to be stamed under Article 7, Schedule 2 of Act 18 of 1869, This article related to the "receipt or discharge given for or upon the payment of money or delivery of, goods in satisfaction of a debt, the amount or value of which money or goods exceeds twenty rupees."

4. The learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court in the course of their judgment observed as follows:

But even assuming that it was so paid, we consider that the document in question was not a receipt for discharge within the meaning of the Act because it was not given to the party who paid the money.

5. In Donogh's Stamp Act, Edn. 8,p. 157, there is a note which runs as follows:

The meaning of the terms "acknowledged" and "acknowledgment" used in Section 2, Clause (23) must be limited to documents given to or issued for the benefit of the debtor, acknowledging to him the payment of money, etc., or delivery of goods, in discharge or satisfaction of his debt or the demand upon him. Accordingly, a certificate to the effect that a premium on an insurance policy has been paid, issued for the purpose of supporting a claim to exemption from income-tax on the amount paid and not primarily intended for use as evidence of payment between the policy-holder and the Insurance Company, is not a receipt, and is therefore exempt from stamp duty: "Chief Court of Lower Burma Rulings, Vol. 2, 1903-04, p. 307 (Burma Stamp Manual, p. 113).

6. The principle deducible from the cases cited above also seems to be that the provi