GOVT. OF U.P. V. RAJA MOHD. AMIR AHMAD KHAN (1962) 1 SCR 97 : AIR 1961 SC 787
FACT
The respondent executed a wakf on 12-9-1948, which was later written on a stamped paper, signed by the respondent, and attested by witnesses.
On 15-9-1948, the document was presented to the Collector for his opinion on the duty chargeable.
The Collector referred the matter to the Board of Revenue, which determined the duty payable in accordance with Article 58 of the Stamp Act.
The respondent filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High Court, challenging the imposition of stamp duty and penalty. This petition was dismissed on 3-11-1952, as premature.
On 2-2-1954, a further notice was served to the respondent to deposit the stamp duty plus penalty within a month, under the threat of proceedings under Section 48 of the Stamp Act.
On 1-3-1944, the respondent filed another petition under Article 226, challenging the legality of the stamp duty and penalty imposition.
The High Court, quash the order of the Collector regarding the imposition of stamp duty and penalty. They interpreted the relevant sections of the Stamp Act, particularly focusing on the phrase "before whom any instrument chargeable...is produced or comes in the performance of his functions" in Section 33.
Hence the present appeal in SC.
ISSUE
The main issue revolved around the interpretation of Sections 31, 32, and 33 of the Stamp Act.
Specifically, the question was whether the Collector had the authority to impound the document under Section 33 after determining the stamp duty.
RULE
Section 31 of the Stamp Act requires the Collector to determine the duty payable on an instrument when it is brought before him.
Section 32 mandates the Collector to certify the instrument as fully stamped if the duty is paid, and the endorsement can be made only if the instrument is presented within a month of its execution.
Section 33 empowers the Collector to impound an instrument if it appears to him to be not duly stamped.
The power to impound does not arise in cases where the instrument is brought before the Collector solely for determination of duty.
HELD
The court examined whether the power to impound under Section 33 arises when an instrument is brought before the Collector solely for determination of duty, not for evidentiary or operational purposes.
It was argued that once the Collector determines the duty, he becomes functus officio and cannot impound the instrument under Section 33.
The doctrine of functus officio was applied in several cases: Collector, Ahmednagar v. Rambhau Tukaram Nirhali [AIR 1930 Bom 392]. In that case a certificate of sale had been signed but the certificate was not duly stamped which was pointed out when it was sent to the Sub-Registrar for registration. The Sub-Registrar informed the Judge about it and the Judge got back the certificate from the purchaser and thinking that he had power to impound the document and to impose a penalty asked for the opinion of the High Court and it was held that after he had signed it, he was functus officio and could not act any further and could not impound it.
Same principle was applied in Paiku Kashinath v. Gaya [ILR 48 Nag 950] and in Chunduri Panakala Rao v. Penugonda Kumaraswami [AIR 1937 Mad 763]
In the present case the instrument is brought before the Collector solely for determination of duty.
Once the duty is determined, the Collector's role ends, and he cannot impound the instrument or take consequential proceedings under Section 33.
The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the Collector became functus officio after determining the duty, and impounding the instrument was not permissible under such circumstances.