JUDGMENT : TUDBALL, J. In this case the applicant has been convicted under sections 62 and 63 of Act II of 1899 in respect of what has been called a sarkhat throughout the case. This sarkhat is a document on a piece of paper which appears to have been written up from time to time. It shows on one side sums of money advanced, and on the opposite side various sums of money repaid by the debtor. When the account was finally closed, a balance of Rs. 50 odd was paid and one receipt stamp attached and signed by the creditor firm. The receipt stamp was not cancelled. The Magistrate has held that the entry in respect of each of the items of receipt of over Rs. 20, is an acknowledgement within the definition of the word “receipt” in section 2, clause (23), of the Act, and that each of such entries should have been stamped, and he has, therefore, convicted the accused under section 62 of the Act. In respect of the non-cancelment of the receipt stamp affixed, he has convicted him under section 63. There cannot be any doubt that the sarkhat was written up from time to time and that it was left in the hands of the debtor, so that the entry of each item of payment and receipt might be entered thereon to act as an acknowledgement of payments and receipts. When each item of receipt was entered by the creditor therein, there can be no doubt that the memorandum imported an acknowledgement of a part-payment of the debt, and as each, entry was made it ought to have been stamped with a receipt stamp. Technically, therefore, the applicant was guilty, and as only a nominal fine has been imposed, there is no reason for interference on the question of sentence. The conviction under section 63 is of course good. The application is rejected.