JUDGMENT

1. This is a reference by the Board of Revenue under Section 57, Stamp Act. Pandit Harnarain Lal brought a suit on the basis of a promissory note dated 8th August 1934, against Udan Singh and others. The document bears a revenue adhesive stamp of one anna. In the opinion of the Inspector of Stamps the document was a bond within the meaning of Section 2(5)(b), Stamp Act, chargeable with a duty of Rupee 1 under Article 15 of Schedule 1, Stamp Act. The learned Civil Judge differed from the Inspector and held that the document was only a promissory note, and not a bond. The scribe of the document is Peare, and he has signed the document in the following words:

Baqalam Peare wald Makhdoom Sheikh, Ratenpur, Rupiya hamare robroo diya gaya, that is, by the pen of Peare son of Makhdoom Sheikh of Ratanpur, the money was paid in my presence.

2. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Advocate is that the scribe plays the part of an attesting witness in regard to the fact of payment by adding the words that "the money was paid in my presence'' and that witnessing to the fact of payment by the scribe amounts to attestation of the document. The word "attestation" is not defined in the Stamp Act, but the word "attested" as inserted in Section 3, T.P. Act by the Amending Act (17 of 1926), in relation to an instrument, means attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. There can be no doubt that a scribe can become an attesting witness, but what is said to be an attestation in the present case is merely a statement in writing by the scribe that the money was paid in his presence. The mere fact that a person says that the money was paid in his presence does not mean that he becomes an attesting witness, and this cannot per se amount to "attestation." We are therefore of opinion that the document in question cannot be treated as a bond. We accordingly reject the reference. Let the papers be returned.