Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Rahat Alikhan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1887)ILR9All210
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentRahat Alikhan
Excerpt:
act i of 1879 (general stamp act), sections 11, 16, 17, 18, 62, 69 - instrument requiring to be stamped before or at time of execution--non-cancellation of adhesive stamp--sanction to prosecution. - .....sections 17 and 18 provide for the stamping of documents executed or drawn out of british india.3. it appears to me that the first paragraph of section 11 applies to cases in which the instrument chargeable with duty may be stamped after execution.4. the receipt to the salary bill in question in this ease was an instrument which required to be stamped before or at the time of execution, and was not an instrument contemplated by the first paragraph of section 11. i am consequently of opinion that there was no abetment of any offence under sections 11 and 62 of the act.5. the offence which appears to have been committed was one under the second paragraph of section 61. as it does not appear that any sanction was given under section 69 by the collector for a prosecution under.....
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J.

1. By Section 16 of the Stamp Act, 1879, it is provided that 'all instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person in British India shall be stamped before or at the time of execution.'

2. Sections 17 and 18 provide for the stamping of documents executed or drawn out of British India.

3. It appears to me that the first paragraph of Section 11 applies to cases in which the instrument chargeable with duty may be stamped after execution.

4. The receipt to the salary bill in question in this ease was an instrument which required to be stamped before or at the time of execution, and was not an instrument contemplated by the first paragraph of Section 11. I am consequently of opinion that there was no abetment of any offence under Sections 11 and 62 of the Act.

5. The offence which appears to have been committed was one under the second paragraph of Section 61. As it does not appear that any sanction was given under Section 69 by the Collector for a prosecution under Section 61, I do not consider it advisable to interfere further than by setting aside the conviction under Section 109 of the Penal Code and Section 62 of the Stamp Act, and directing that the fine, if realized, be refunded. It does not appear to me that Rahat Ali Khan contemplated the commission of any offence.


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