Emperor vs Mahipal Singh - 1932 Supreme(Oudh) 15

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1932 Supreme(Oudh) 15

Emperor – Appellant
Versus
Mahipal Singh – Respondent

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) wher

Click Here to Read the rest of this document