EMPEROR Vs. GIRDHARDAS LILADHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications are both closely connected, and may be disposed of together. The applicant, who is a partner in a firm, has been convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, Third Court. Bombay, of two offences under the Indian Stamp Act, one under Section 62(1)(b), "executing or signing otherwise than as a witness any other instrument chargeable with duty without the same being duly stamped", and the ether under Section 65, Clause (a), " being required under Section 30 to give a receipt, refuses or neglects to give the same;". He has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 under each of the two sections in the two cases.

(2.) The facts are simple. The accused's firm were import and export merchants, and they ordered out goods from Europe and other countries for their constituents. In the course of their business a consignment of watch glasses were ordered out for the International Watch Company in July 1929, and in respect of that consignment a receipt, unstamped, was passed by the firm and signed by the present applicant on January 31, 1931, in favour of the International Watch Trading Company. As regards the other case there was another consignment of goods, also apparently for the International Watch Company, in respect of which a receipt dated July 4, 1929, was passed without being stamped for Rs. 78-6-0 in favour of one R.F. Davar. R.F. Davar was a clerk of the accused, and he is the person who received the money in the first case from the International Watch Company, and in the second case it is not quite clear in what capacity he acted-he was still a clerk of the firm, but he received the money and paid the money in respect of this consignment into the firm. There can be no doubt that this case would not have come before the Court were it not for the fact that subsequently the accused fell out with Davar, who was dismissed in February 1931, and a decree was obtained against him in the Small Cause Court on April 25, 1932. On the following day Davar went to the stamp authorities with these two unstamped receipts, and the present proceedings were instituted on his information. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the present cases are instituted in revenge for his having been dismissed by the applicant's firm. That, however, is a matter with which we are not concerned, inasmuch as the present matter has to be decided on a pure point of law.

(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there cannot be two convictions under two separate sections in respect of these two receipts. He argues that if there is a failure under Section 65 to give a stamped receipt on demand, Section 62 can have no application, inasmuch as that applies to executing a receipt, whereas Section 65 applies to failure to execute a receipt. But as a matter of fact both these sections will apply, and have been held to apply to matters of this character. A receipt is chargeable with a duty of one anna under Art. 53 of the first schedule to the Indian Stamp Act. Under Section 62(1), Clause (b), any person executing or signing otherwise than as a witness "any other instrument", i.e., any instrument other than a bill of exchange or promissory note, chargeable with duty without the same being duly stamped is punishable with fine. This section is drafted in extremely general terms, and is quite wide enough to cover the case of a receipt. As a matter of fact a letter acknowledging the receipt of money in satisfaction of a debt has been held to be chargeable with duty, and writers of such letters have been convicted under this section for omitting to stamp them : vide Reference under Stamp Act, Section 46 (1884) I.L.R. 8 Mad. 11, F.B. and Queen-Empress V/s. Muttirulandi (1887) I.L.R. 11 Mad. 329. Section 65 refers to any person who, being required under Section 30 to give a receipt, refuses or neglects to give the same, and Section 30 lays down that any person receiving any money exceeding twenty rupees in amount shall on demand by the person paying or delivering such money give a duly stamped receipt for the same. It would seem, therefore, that a person who gives an unstamped receipt to evade the payment of duty commits an offence under Section 62(1)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act, and also an offence under Section 65, Clause (a). The offence under Section 65 consists in not giving a properly stamped receipt when demanded ; the offence under Section 62(1)(b) consists in passing a receipt unstamped, whether one is demanded by the payer or not, and this view is supported by a ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Queen-Empress V/s. Khetter Mohun Chowdhry (1900) I.L.R. 27, Cal. 324 in which the facts are very similar to the present case, and it was held that the members of the firm who were charged under Section 61 of the Indian Stamp Act of 1879 with having granted an unstamped receipt, and under Section 64 of that Act with having refused to grant a stamped receipt were liable to punishment under both sections, provided that in the latter case the requisition under Section 58 of the Act had been established by evidence Secs.61 and 64 correspond to the present Secs.62 and 65 respectively, and Section 58 corresponds to Section 30), Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that there cannot be two offences under two sections in respect of the same transaction is not, in my opinion, correct.