JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. The applicants brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, vested with the powers of a Court of Small Causes to recover money due upon two promissory notes. Each of the promissory notes bore an adhesive stamp of ane anna. The stamp was cancelled by the executant writing his name on and across the stamp. The Court below held that the stamp had not been duly cancelled, because the executant had not dated his signature, and accordingly dismissed the suit. The Court below was in my judgment clearly wrong. Section 12, sub-section (1) of the Stamp Act (No. II of 1899) requires that any one affixing an adhesive stamp to any instrument chargeable with duty, “shall, when affixing such stamp, cancel the same so that it cannot be used again.” By the same section, sub-section (2), “any instrument bearing an adhesive stamp, which has not been cancelled so that it cannot be used again shall be deemed to be unstamped.” Sub-section (3) of the section provides that “the person required by sub-section (1) to cancel an adhesive stamp may cancel it by writing on or across the stamp his name or initials with the true date of his so writing or in any other effectual manner.” The omission to date the stamp, if it is cancelled in an effectual manner, does not render the instrument one which would come within the purview of sub-section (2). In this case the stamps were cancelled in an effectual manner so that they could not be used again. I notice that on the instruments in question being impounded and sent to the Collector, he refused to take action on the ground that the stamps had been cancelled in an effectual manner. The reasons, therefore, for which the Court below refused to admit the promissory notes in evidence and dismissed the suit cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the application, set aside the decree of the Court below and send back the case to that Court with directions to try the suit according to law. Costs of this application will be costs in the cause.