STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. JIWAN MATHURA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This and Misc. Civil Case No. 102/80 are two references made under Section 57 (1) of the Stamp Act, by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, for answering the following question :- "Whether it ii proper or legal to recover short-paid stamp duty on a document which has become infructuous and is no longer required for any purpose ?"

(2.) The statement of case submitted by the learned member of the Board is that Municipal Committee, Sakti gave a Theka to non-applicant Jiwan Mathura Prasad for the recovery of the market fee imposed on the purchase of cattle in the Bazars. The Theka was for an amount of Rs. 2,05,000/-. The non-applicant Jiwan Mathura Prasad deposited an amount of Rs. 68,334/- only. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,36,666/- was to be paid in two equal instalments of Rupees 68,333/- only on 1st Jan., 1976 and 29th Feb., 1976. The non-applicant Jiwan Mathura Prasad executed a bond on this account and Abheram, Lalsao, Vireshkumar and Bahadur Sao stood as sureties on his behalf. The bond executed by Jiwan Mathura Prasad and the sureties were accepted by the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Sakti on 11-7-1975.

(3.) The Inspector of Stamps and Registration, Bilaspur Division, while inspecting the office of the Municipal Committee, Sakti, impounded these documents because they were under-stamped. According to him, the document executed by non-applicant Jiwan Mathura Prasad was under-stamped to the extent of Rs. 5,841/- while those of the sureties were under-stamped to the extent of Rs. 46/- only. After impounding these documents, he made a report to the Collector of Stamps, Sakti for recovery and appropriate action under Section 38 (2) and Section 40 of the Stamp Act. Before Collector of Stamps i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Collector of Stamps, Sakti, the non-applicants raised various contentions contending (1) that as the documents were not to be used in evidence, no extra stamp duty could be recovered from them; and (2) that in view of the decision in Dhaniram v. Janapad Sabha, AIR 1965 Madh Pra 219 (FB), the Municipal Committee was not competent to impose a fee on the sale of cattle. But these contentions were not accepted by the Collector of Stamps. But he, instead of passing an order, made a reference to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Under Section 56 (2) of the Stamp Act.