Lakshminarayana Reddy, J.
1. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to issue directions directing the respondents herein to release the lorry bearing No. 5743 to the petitioner without insisting on the bond of third party immovable property security to be registered in favour of the first respondent herein, pending disposal of the Criminal Revision Case.
2. The first respondent is the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Anakapalli. This Court in its order dated 14-11-1984 in Crl. M. P. No. 2719/84, directed that the lorry bearing APT 5743 be released on her furnishing third party immovable property security for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the first respondent herein, i.e., the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Anakapalli. The petitioner now contends that she had accordingly deposited title deeds of the house of third party-Malla Venkata Rao - situated in Anakapalli town, valuing more than Rs. one lakh and she also filed the plan approved by the Municipality and also the latest tax receipt of the said house for the year 1984. She also filed a certificate of the Municipal Commissioner, Anakapalli, stating that the value of the house of Malla Venkata Rao is worth about Rs. one lakh and also filed original security bonds of M. Venkata Rao, annexed on the stamp paper of Rs. 30/- under Article 48(b) of Schedule 1 (a) of Stamp Act. The learned Munsif Magistrate directed to get the bond of third party immovable property registered in favour of the Presiding Officer of the Court. Aggrieved by this direction, the present petition is filed to quash it.
3. The point that arises for consideration in this case is whether the bond executed in favour of the Presiding Officer of a Court, which is a security bond mortgaging immovable property in favour of the Presiding Officer, is liable to be registered, under the provisions of the Stamp Act.
4. A similar question arose in the decision Purra Pentaiah v. Madam Pandya : AIR1980AP290 , before my learned brother, Jeevan Reddy J., and he surveyed the whole law on this question and came to a conclusion that as far as this Court is concerned, it is bound by the earlier judgments of the Madras High Court and also the judgment of Kumarayya J. (as he then was) in Narahariappa v. Mohamed Moulana : AIR1967AP5 , affirming the Madras view. The learned Judges of this Court did not agree with the judgments of some other High Courts, which are contra to the judgments of the Madras High Court and this Court. The contra view was expressed by the following High Courts:
Bombay (in Jayappa v. Shivan Gouda AIR 1928 Bom 42), Lahore (in Kasturilal v. Goverdhan Das AIR 1934 Lab. 138 (FB)); Madhya Pradesh (in Hari Jiwakhan v. Gulabchand : AIR1961MP2 ); Nagpur (in Dadoo Balaji v. Kanhaialal Dhannaram AIR 1947 Nag 26); Delhi (in Label Art Press v. I. E Machinery Co. : AIR1974Delhi136 ) Himachal Pradesh (in Union of India v. Rajindera Singh AIR 1975 Him Pra 25 (FB)); Orissa (in Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys v. O. S. E. Board : AIR1980Ori44 ); and Punjab (in Basant Lal v. Jagadish Prasad ).
The learned Judge also gave reasons for affirming the judgments of the Madras High Court and this Court. The learned Judge then observed:
I am, therefore, unable to agree with the reasoning of these High Courts though it is true that adopting this view would go a long way in relieving the parties of unnecessary expense and trouble. Probably, the situation can be remedied by appropriately amending the Stamp and Registration Rules, exempting such security bonds from the Stamp and Registration charges. Such a course would not only meet the requirements of law but would also guard against any fraud being committed by unscrupulous transferors, thereby protecting the interests of innocent third parties.
I am in full agreement with the opinion expressed by Jeevan Reddy, J. in the above decision. In this view of the matter, I see no merits in this petition. Petition is accordingly dismissed.