JUDGMENT Ghosh, J. - The Petitioner before this Court has been convicted of an offence under sec. 62, cl. (b) of the Stamp Act. That section runs thus: "Any person . . . executing or signing otherwise than as a witness any other instrument chargeable with duty without the same being duly stamped . . . shall for . . . such offence be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees." The case for the prosecution is that a certain receipt was granted by the firm of the accused acknowledging the payment of a certain amount of money as the price of certain goods sold to that firm. This receipt bears upon the face of it the signature of one Kaladhar, at least, so it is alleged by the prosecution. Who this Kaladhar is, so far as I can gather, does not appear upon this record. This receipt having not been given on a duly stamped paper, it is said that the accused is guilty under the section of the Stamp Act to which I have already referred. The Rule that was granted by this Court was upon three grounds, but it is not necessary to examine all these grounds. It is sufficient to say that, upon the first-mentioned ground, it should succeed--that ground being that there is nothing to connect the Petitioner with the granting of the receipt in question. It may be, as the Magistrate says it is the case, that the Petitioner is the sole surviving member of the firm who sold the goods and received the money paid as the price of the said goods. It may also be taken that the gomastha of the firm, whoever that person may be, granted the said receipt when the money was paid. But it does not necessarily follow from this that the master of the firm was connected with this act, or with the violation of the provisions of the Stamp Act. There is nothing to show that the accused was present on the occasion, when the money was paid and the receipt granted, or that he did authorize the gomastha to grant the receipt in the form that was given without any stamp being used. In these circumstances, I am of opinion, that the offence attributed to the accused has not been brought home to him. In these circumstances, I am of opinion, that the offence attributed to the accused has not been brought home to him. The Rule is accordingly made absolute so as to set aside the conviction and sentence and refund the fine if it has been realized.