EMPEROR Vs. PANNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Government appeal against a judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the accused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Agra sitting at Muttra.

(2.) The facts involved are very simple and are these. The respondent, Panna Lal, executed a document on the 27 of January 1925 in more or less the following language. He recited that a certain parson named in the deed had executed in his favour on the 24 of August 1915 a simple mortgage bond for Rs. 300 hypothecating certain properties which he mentioned. Then ha received that he had received from Durga Prasad (evidently the successor-in-title of the mortgagor) a certain sum of money and that after giving credit for the money paid only a sum of Rs. 100 was due to him. Panna Lal then went on to say in the deed that he was going to receive that sum of Rs. 100 from Durga Prasad before the Sub-Registrar and that accordingly he executed the document of release (datbardari) and thereby renounced all rights that had accrued to him on account of the document of 1915. The document, on being presented before the Sub-Registrar, was impounded by him and sent to the Collector. The Collector was of opinion that as the deed of release was of the value of Rs. 300, it ought to have borne a stamp duty of Rs. 1-12 0. As the stamp duty of 8 annas only bad been paid be realized a sum of Rs. 1-4-0, the deficiency in stamp duty, and Rs. 12-8-0 penalty, being the tan times of the deficiency in stamp duty. After all this the Collector was of opinion that the document had been insufficiently stamped in order to evade payment of stamp duty and he ordered the prosecution of the respondent. Panna Lal was accordingly prosecuted before a learned Magistrate and was fined Rs, 62-8-0. Out of Rs. 62-8-0 a sum of Rs. 12-8-0, the amount of the penalty, was to be deducted and Panna Lal was to pay a sum of Rs. 50 as a fine.

(3.) Panna Lal appealed to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Judge was of opinion that the chief element of the offence was intention and there being no proof of any intention to defraud the Government of its stamp duty, he acquitted Patina Lal.