Find a Lawyer

Suit No. 603 of 1950, decided on 10th Feburary 1954.

Stamp Act (11 of 1899), Ss. 18, 33, 35‑‑Foreign document --‑To be stamped within 3 months ; with penalty after 3 months ---Duty to be assessed with reference to date of execution.

An instrument executed in India was not stamped afresh within 3 months of receipt in Pakistan.

Held, that the document could be impoundbd under section 33 Stamp Act and after duty and penalty had been paid under section 35 was admissible in evidence.

The requisite duty would be the duty as prescribed in Pakistan on the date of execution.

I L R 5 Mad. 394 ref.

Riaz Ahmad, for Plaintiff.

Abdul Aziz, for Defendants.

‑This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,000 on the basis of a document executed by the parties on 6^th October 1947. According to this document, it is alleged by the plaintiff, that the defendants agreed to supply fruits for an amount of Rs. 10,000 and in the alternative to pay back Rs. 10,000. The defendants in this document had acknowledged their liability for the payment of the same as they had received that amount from the father of Abdul Qayum, the plaintiff in the present case. This document was executed in India after the partition. It bears a stamp, duty of one rupee. The contention of Mr. Abdul Aziz, the learned advocate for the defendants is that the document should have been stamped afresh in Pakistan. There is an issue also to that effect. Mr. Abdul Aziz has raised two‑fold contentions as regards this document. In the first place his coatention is that the document being not properly stamped it cannot be received in evidence. In the second place his contention is that the document cannot be impounded and penalty levied thereon as it is now beyond three months.

I would deal with the question of limitation in the first place. Mr. Abdul Aziz relies on section 18 of the Stamp Act II of 1899. Section 18 reads as under :

"(1) Every instrument chargeable with duty executed only out of the Provinces and the Capital of the Federation; and not being a bill of exchange, or promissory Note, may be stamped within three months after it had been first received in the Provinces and the Capital of the Federation:

(2) Where any such instrument cannot, with reference to the description of stamp prescribed therefor, be duly stamped by a private person, it may be taken within the said period of three months to the Collector, who shall stamp the same, in such manner as the collecting Govern ment may by rule prescribe, with a stamp of such value as the person so taking such instrument may require and pay for."

The contention of Mr. Abdul Aziz is that the document admittedly has not been stamped within three months after it has been first received in the Capital of the Federation. He therefore maintains that the same cannot now be received in evidence as the question of impounding and penalty on the same does not now arise. I have given a careful consideration to this question and I am of the view that the Legislature has given a certain time by way of grace to parties who have in their possession documents not executed in the Provinces of Pakistan or Capital of the Federation. These parties have been given a period of grace of three months when they can have the documents stamped according to the stamp duty required for those documents under Stamp Act, II of 1899 as applicable to Pakistan. Sub‑Clause II of section 18 of the Stamp Act makes it clear that the document executed outside the Provinces or the Capital of the Federation can be stamped by a private individual as well as through the Collector but the same must be done within 3 months. Section 18 of the Stamp Act does not speak about the penalty. If a document was received in Pakistan, say, on the 1st January 1953 and an action was started .in the Civil Court on the basis of that document in the same month and it .was brought to the notice of the Court that it has not been stamped afresh in Pakistan, the Court could impound it under section 33 of the Stamp Act but in view of section 18 of the Stamp Act the question of penalty Would not arise as the document was impounded within three months of its receipt in the Provinces or the Capital of the Federation. The question, in my opinion, would only arise when the document has not been stamped as required under section 18 of .the Stamp Act. Section 33 which deals with the examination of a document impounding the dame does not state that an instrument cannot be impounded if it has been received beyond three months of its receipt in the Capital of the Federation. Section 35 of the Act states about instruments which have not been duly stamped oar in Admissible in evidence but on certain penalty being levied it can be received in evidence. This section does not put any time limit when penalty can be levied. The rule of interpretation of statute is that different provisions of an enactment should be so read together that they are reconcilable with each other. If sections 18, 33 and 35 are read together the only conclusion that one can come to is that the question of penalty would only arise when the document in question has not been stamped afresh within three months of its receipt. In my opinion therefore the document can be impounded and penalty received thereon.

So far as the other question raised by Mr. Abdul Aziz, the learned advocate is concerned, that the document requires to be stamped in Pakistan, Mr. Riaz Ahmed, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, has candidly conceded that it is so. Another important question for my consideration is whether the penalty that has to' be imposed with reference to the Act which was in force at the time when the document was executed or at the time when the penalty is being levied. The present point is concluded by a Full Bench case of the Madras High Court relied on by Mr. Riaz Ahmad. It has been held in that case (I L R 5 Mad. 394) that under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act 1879 the duty chargeable on an insufficiently stamped document must be decided with reference to the Act in force at the date of the execution of the document. The penalty leviable' however would be determined in all cases by section 35 of the Stamp Act of 1879. In the present case therefore the duty chargeable on the present document in question would be one rupee.

I therefore for the reasons set forth above impound the document as it has not been stamped afresnhia Pakistan. If the document has been stamped afresh in Pakistan at that time when it was executed the duty payable would have been rupee one. I therefore order that the document be sent over to the Collector for realising the necessary penalty and stamp duty. Mr. Riaz Ahmad prays that he should be given the document for presentation to the Collector personally in order to expedite the matter. Let the document he given to Mr. Riaz, the learned counsel for the plaintiff, for necessary action.

The case is adjourned till document is received from the Collector's office.

A. H. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.