Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDULSHAKUR VS Respondent: KHALAS KHAN
P L D 1955 Lahore 565
P L D 1955 Lahore 565
Before M. R. Kayani, J
ABDULSHAKUR
versus
KHALAS KHAN
Criminal Revision No. 606 of 1955. Question of Court- fee on power of attorney, decided on 5th July, 1955.
(Case "Abdul Shakur v. Khalas Khan" under section 302, P. P. C., against the acquittal of the accused‑respondent, was heard by Mr. Justice M. R. Kayani and Mr. Justice Abdul Aziz Khan and was dismissed on the 25th May, 1955).
(The power of attorney was not property stamped in this case and by the Taxing Officer s order, dated the 27th April, 1955, the case was referred under section 5 of the Court‑Fees Act to the Taxing judge for final decision.
Court‑fee‑Single adhesive stamp of required value not avail able‑Certificate of non‑availability from stamp‑vendor produced subsequently to presentation of document in Court‑Document, held, validly stamped‑Rules 1 and 4, Punjab Court Fees Stamp Rules, 1934‑Rule 4 exceeds power given by S. 27 Court Fees Act (VII of 1870).
Rule 4, Punjab Court Fee Stamp Rules, 1934 says that where a stamp of the required value is not available, the pur chaser shall obtain a certificate from the vendor to that effect and affix it to the document before producing it. This is a requirement which exceeds the power given by section 27 of the Act and has been introduced merely as a matter of proba tive convenience. For the power to make rules regulating the number of stamps to be used on a document does not include the power to lay down a rule of evidence as to how the non availability of the stamp of a certain donomination may be proved.
It would, however; be necessary to require the person producing the document to furnish evidence that "a single adhesive stamp of the required value is not available", and so long as such evidence is not furnished, the High Court would be entitled to reject the document.
As soon as a certificate is brought, rule 1 should be deemed to have been complied with, and the compliance will obviously date back to the time of presentation of the document, provided it then bore the requisite fee.
JUDGMENT
KAYANI, J.--‑The question is whether, if a certificate from the vendor is not affixed to a document under rule 4 of the Punjab Court‑Fees Stamp Rules, 1934, it is properly stamped, even though a certificate is obtained later.
Section 4 of the Court‑Fees Act requires that no docu ment of the kinds mentioned in the first or second schedule shall be received by the High Court in any case coming before it unless in respect of it there be paid a certain amount of Court‑fee indicated in the schedules. If, therefore, the docu ment bears the requisite Court‑fee, it will be received by the High Court. The mode of levying fees is stated in Chapter V. Under section 25, such fees are to be collected by stamps. Under section 26, the stamps shall be impressed or adhesive according as the Government shall, from time to time, direct in the Gazette. Under section 27, Government may make rules regulating, among other things, the number of stamps to be used for denoting any fee, and such rules shall have the force of law as soon as they are published in the Gazette. The Government have, under the combined operation of sections 26 and 27, made the Punjab Court Fees Stamp Rules, 1934. Rule 1 requires that when the fee chargeable is less than Rs. 25 and the amount can be denoted by a single adhesive stamp, such fee shall be denoted by a single adhesive stamp of the required value, but if the amount cannot be denoted by a single adhesive stamp or if a single adhesive stamp of the required value is not available; a stamp of the next lower value available shall be used and the deficiency shall be made up by the use of one or more additional adhesive stamps of the next lower values so as to make up the exact amount of the fee. Rule 4 says that where a stamp of the required value is not available, the pur chaser shall obtain a certificate from the vendor to that effect and affix it to the document before producing it. This is a requirement which exceeds the power given by section 27 of the Act and has been introduced merely as a matter of probative convenience. For the power to make rules regulating the number of stamps to be used on a document does not include the power to lay down a rule of evidence as to how the non availability of the stamp of a certain donomination may be proved. The law requires that no document shall be received unless a certain amount has been paid in respect of it as Court fee. How it should be paid is stated in rule 1. If there is compliance with rule 1, the document should be received.
But how is the High Court to know whether rule 1 has been complied with ? In the absence of rule 4, it would be necessary to require the person producing the document to 'furnish evidence that "a single adhesive stamp of the required , value is not available", and so long as such evidence is not' furnished, the High Court would be entitled to reject the document. Rule 4 has made it convenient to require the certificate of the stamp vendor so as to dispense with the necessity of producing evidence. So long, therefore, as the certificate required by rule 4 is not furnished, the High Court would be entitled to require evidence that a single adhesive stamp of the required value is not available: As soon as a certificate is brought, rule 1 should be deemed to have been complied with, and the compliance will obviously date back to the time of presentation of the document, provided it then bore the requisite fee.
A. H. Reference answered.