Short Note : 1. The non-applicant Natthusha instituted a suit for Rs. 467/- against the applicant on the basis of two pro notes (i) dated 21-10-1972 for Rs. 125/- and (ii) dated 14-2-1973 for Rs. 225/- and interest amounting to Rs. 117/-. The suit was contested by the applicant on a number of grounds which are not required to be stated for the purpose of this revision application. So far as pronote for Rs. 125/- is concerned, the contention of the applicant was that it was not properly stamped as required by the Stamp Act, in as much as it was executed on a postal stamp ment for refusing relief valued at 5 Paise and the pronote was, therefore, inadmissible in evidence for any purpose. In the light of this objection, the learned trial Judge impounded document and directed it to be sent to the Collector for validation on payment of the required duty and penalty. The contention of the applicant was that such a promissory note could not be validated by the Collector even on the payment of duty and penalty. This objection of the applicant was disallowed by the impugned order. Held : According to the provisions of proviso (a) to section 35 of the Stamp Act a promissory note which is not duly stamped, cannot be admitted in evidence on payment of any duty and penalty, If even on payment of duty and penalty, there is no scope for such appromissory note being admitted in evidence, then it can neither be validated nor any duty and penalty can be collected thereon. According to Art. 49 of Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act the said promissory note of Rs. 125 should have been stamped of 10 Paise. In this case the same is stamped with a stamp of 5 paise and that too by a postal stamp. Section 37 of the Stamp Act no doubt provides that where an instrument bears a stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description, it may be on payment of duty with which the same is chargeable certified to be duly stamped and any instrument so certified shall then be deemed to be duly stamped as from the date of its execution. The provisions of section 37 also do not help the non-applicant, because this is not a case where the promissory note bears stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description. The provisions of section 37 also do not help the non-applicant, because this is not a case where the promissory note bears stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description. In my opinion, therefore, in the light of the specific provisions of section 35 of the Stamp Act, the pro note dated 21-10-1972 could not be sent to the Collector for validation on payment of duty and penalty. Revision allowed.