Skip to content


Empress Vs. Janki - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Bom82
AppellantEmpress
RespondentJanki
Excerpt:
stamp act i of 1879, sections 34, 37, 40, 61 and 69 - execution of unstamped instrument--receipt of unstamped instrument--sanction by collector to prosecute--abetment. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91).....west, j.1. the effect of sections 37 and 40 of the stamp act i of 1879 is that every one must be allowed an opportunity of paying the penalty before the collector exercises his discretion under section 69. in many cases there may be a reasonable question as to whether any penalty is payable or not, and the duty may be recovered by an order which would be lost by a prosecution. he ought, at any rate, to do what the law commands as his duty before exercising a mere discretion. it is not abetment of the execution of an unstamped instrument to receive it, any more than acceptance of stolen property is abetment of theft. the court is of opinion that the decision of mr. ingle is right.
Judgment:

West, J.

1. The effect of Sections 37 and 40 of the Stamp Act I of 1879 is that every one must be allowed an opportunity of paying the penalty before the Collector exercises his discretion under Section 69. In many cases there may be a reasonable question as to whether any penalty is payable or not, and the duty may be recovered by an order which would be lost by a prosecution. He ought, at any rate, to do what the law commands as his duty before exercising a mere discretion. It is not abetment of the execution of an unstamped instrument to receive it, any more than acceptance of stolen property is abetment of theft. The Court is of opinion that the decision of Mr. Ingle is right.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //