RAJAMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision case arises out of a complaint filed by the District Registrar, Coimbatore against the petitioners under Section 64 read with Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act, for having executed and got registered before the Joint Sub Registrar, Coimbatore, a deed of 'exchange' as a 'settlement deed' with intent to defraud the State by their failure to give full facts regarding the value of the properties and the nature of the transaction. The document purported to make over the A schedule properties therein belonging to the petitioners 2 and 3 to the first petitioner and her minor daughter in exchange for the properties described in the B schedule belonging to the first petitioner subject to the encumbrances set out in the C schedule. It was found on investigation that the A schedule properties were worth only Rs. 18,500 while the B schedule properties were worth Rs. 1,67,020 and that by getting the document registered, the State had been defrauded to the tune of Rs. 5025, on account of stamp duty. The petitioners were then called upon to pay the aforesaid amount and surcharge, Rs. 6680-80 np, the total of which, after deducting the stamp duty already paid, came to Rs. 11,254-30 np. The prosecution which gave rise to this case was the result of the petitioners' evasion to pay the aforesaid amount.

(2.) THE plea of the petitioners was that they had not suppressed any fact before the Registrar and that they had placed before him all the relevant facts. The courts below negatived this plea. The further point urged before the learned District Magistrate in appeal that valid sanction had not been obtained for the prosecution was also not upheld by him; so that he found the petitioners to be rightly guilty of an offence under the Registration Act; in his view not under Section 64 (a) read with, Section 27 of the Act, but under Section 62 (1) (b) and while altering the conviction into one under the latter section, confirmed the sentence of fine of Rs 200 as appropriate. It is contended before me that want of sanction under Section 62 (1) (b) has vitiated the conviction. The sanction accorded in this case was under Section 64 read with Section 27 of the Stamp Act, and the same was to this effect: Under Section 70 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act II of 1899), the District Registrar, Coimbatore, hereby sanctions the prosecution of Srimathi Rajammal, Chinna Pappa (alias) Ramaswami Goundan and Chinna Karuppathal, for an offence under Section 64 read with Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act as they have failed to set forth fully and truly the value of the B schedule property in document No. 1767/1960 dated 30-6-1960, of Joint Second Sub-Registrar's Office, Coimbatore, and executed by the above three persons with a view to evade the proper stamp duty due to Government. The trial Sub-Magistrate, found the petitioners guilty as charged and convicted and sentenced them under Section 64 (a) read with Section 27. The learned District Magistrate, however, took the view that the petitioners had not wilfully suppressed the real value of any of the properties as alleged in the complaint and that all that could be said was that they wanted to make it appear that the document was not an exchange deed, but an instrument in the nature of a settlement-cumrelease deed. He observed: It is an open document without suppression of any detail. No doubt the appellants have styled it as a settlement-cumrelease deed. They are entitled to call it by whatever name they choose. Otherwise, the facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument with the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable are fully and truly set forth in the instrument itself. So they cannot be convicted with the intent to defraud the Government under Section 64 (a) read with B. 27 of the Stamp Act.

(3.) THE learned District Magistrate then considered the question whether in the circumstances, the petitioners do not come under Section 62 (i) (b) which rendered liable for conviction any one executing or signing any instrument not covered by Section 62 (1) (a) and chargeable with duty without. the same being duly stamped; and, after considering. the definition "duly stamped" under the Act, he held that quite apart from the question of mens. rea, the petitioners are liable, for conviction under Section 62 (i) (b ).