DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION SAHIBGANJ Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE District Bar Association, Sahibganj through its Secretary has filed this writ application as a Public Interest Litigation matter through which a declaration is being sought that no court -fee is payable on bail bonds submitted in criminal cases. The main grievance of the petitioner is that non - acceptance of bail bonds by the Courts without affixing court fee stamp of Rs. 5/ - has aroused displeasure and inconvenience to the persons detained in the Jails. According to the petitioner, all the bail bonds filed in all criminal cases are exempted from payment of any court fee under Section 19 clause (xv) of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

(2.) THE distinction between two provisions relating to the changeability of court -fee on bail bonds, namely. Article 6 (as adopted by the local amendment carried out through Bihar Act No. 7 of 1996 in Schedule II) and Section 19(xv) of the Court Fees Act. 1870. is quite apparent, very clear and wholly ambiguous. Whereas Section 19 does clearly say that the documents mentioned in sub -sections (i) to (xiv) of that section shall not be chargeable with any fee. notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Court Fees Act and undoubtedly sub -section (xv) in the said section clearly spelling out a bail bond in criminal cases as one of such documents not chargeable with any fee, Article 6 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act refers to the bail bonds or other instruments of obligation given in pursuance of any order made by a Court or Magistrate under any section of the Code of Criminal Procedure etc. etc. For ready reference, we reproduce herein -below Section 19(xv) and Article 6 of Schedule 11 which read thus : - -

(3.) THE words occurring in Article 6. Schedule II of the Act i.e. "Bail Bond or other instruments of obligation given in pursuance of any order made by a Court of Magistrate under any section of the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Code of Civil Procedure" came for consideration before a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in a reference under Order XLVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question that arose before the Full Bench was whether security bond executed under order of Court passed under Order XXXII. Rule 6(2) or any other rule or section of the Code of Civil Procedure should be stamped under the Court Fees Act or under the Stamp Act. Reason for reference was that one Division Bench of the Court took the view that security bonds given in pursuance of an order of the Court for stay of execution should be stamped under the same Act, while another Division Bench took a view that security bonds executed by a person for the release of attached animals should "be stamped under Article 6. Schedule II of the Court Fees Act.