HARNAM SINGH Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE general question, which presently falls for determination is : whether a certificate appended to an affidavit by a Notary Public, which is not duly stamped, is admissible in evidence ?

(2.) WHILE the statement of Mr. R.S. Jamwal Advocate, a Notary Public, was being recorded to prove the certificate appended by him to an affidavit alleged to have been executed by the first defendant, an objection was raised en behalf of the latter that the certificate could not be admitted in evidence, as the same was not duly stamped. Reliance in support of the objection was placed upon Sec. 11 of the Stamp Act, hereinafter me Act, read with Art. 42 of Schedule I to the Act. This objection was sought to be met on a twin ground that certificate or endorsement of a Notary Public not being an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act, no duty was chargeable on it and that in any case Sec. 11 gave a discretion to a party desirous of making use of a instrument to pay or not to pay a stamp duty on it.

(3.) SEC . 3 of the Act is the charging section, whereas Schedule I prescribes the stamp duty with which a particular instrument is chargeable. Sec. 3, in so far as it is material for the decision of the point at issue, is reproduced as below: - Subject to the provisions of this Act and the exemptions contained in Schedule I, the following instruments shall be chargeable with duty of the amount indicated in that schedule as the proper duty therefor respectively, that is to say - (a) every instrument mentioned in that schedule which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed in the State on or after the date on which this Act comes into force. 