JUDGMENT Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The petitioner (opposite party in appeal) has come up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 1.11.2014 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow in Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2011) State of U.P. v. Competent Authority (Evacuee Property), Misc. Appeal No. 36 of 2011, under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (the Act), impounding the instrument, directing the petitioner to pay the deficient stamp duty. 2. Facts giving rise to the petition briefly is that the petitioner purchased 2/5th share admeasuring 10,040 square metre, part of Khasra No. 1536 of Khewat No. 1/1 and 3 of Mahal Umar Daraj Ali Khan vide instrument No. 8470 of 2001 dated 11.10.2001 for Rs.1,10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- was paid as stamp duty on the instrument. 3. Petitioner filed an application before the competent authority/Board of Revenue for separation of 2/5th portion from the evacuee property belonging to Umar Daraj Ali Khan. 4. The competent authority on 27.10.2010 directed for partition of the composite property and separating 2/5th share of the petitioner which was not part of the evacuee property. 5. The order dated 27.10.2010 was subjected to challenge in appeal under Section 14 of Evacuee Interest (Separation Act) 1951 by the State of U.P through Collector, before the District Judge, Lucknow. 6. The appellant(State) filed an application on 31.3.2011 requesting the Court to impound the instrument i.e sale deed dated 11.10.2001, and until duly stamped, the instrument may not be not read in evidence. 7. In the meantime, proceedings was instituted under Section 33/38/47-A/40-B of the Act, being case No. 01/11-12, purported to have been instituted on a complaint filed by one Shri Kant Tyagi. 8. The Additional Collector (F&R) Muzaffarnagar, by order dated 15.7.2011, discharged the notice on the ground of limitation. The relevant fact to be noticed is that the complaint is dated 1.4.2011, notice was issued on the same day i.e on 1.4.2011 requiring the petitioner to appear on 19.4.2011, the order discharging the notices was passed on 15.7.2011. It appears that the proceedings was initiated under the Act, at the behest of the petitioner, in order to take a plea in the pending appeal that the question regarding deficiency of stamp had attained finality. 9. It appears that the proceedings was initiated under the Act, at the behest of the petitioner, in order to take a plea in the pending appeal that the question regarding deficiency of stamp had attained finality. 9. The petitioner opposed the application, the application of the appellant State to impound the instrument, stating that proceedings under Section 33/47-A of the Act cannot be initiated after lapse of 8 years, the instrument was executed on 11.10.2001, order passed on 27.10.2010 i.e beyond the period of limitation, hence the instrument cannot be impounded, further it was averred that no objection was raised regarding the deficiency of stamp duty before the competent authority/Board of Revenue, the same cannot be raised at the appellate stage. 10. Objections raised by the petitioner was rebutted by the State/appellant stating that the petitioner had not disclosed in the instrument, the valuation of the property, and the stamp duty payable thereon, which came to light only after the order dated 27.10.2010, passed in ex parte proceedings, further the property is situated in a posh locality, Civil Lines, Muzaffarnagar, minimum value (circle rate) at the time of execution of the deed was fixed at Rs.6000/- per square metre, accordingly, the value of the property was at Rs.6,02,40,000.00, the stamp duty payable was at Rs.60,14,000.00, whereas, the petitioner has paid Rs.10,000/- towards duty. The question of limitation will not arise as the instrument came to notice only after the order dated 27.10.2010. The appellant’s restoration application to recall the order dated 27.10.2010 was dismissed by the competent authority, the Board of Revenue on 17.2.2011, thereafter, Commissioner was appointed for separation of the alleged interest of the petitioner, which was not identifiable on the spot, the name of the State was mutated since long in the revenue record. 11. The learned appellate Court disposed of the application by the impugned order holding that the Court under Section 33,34 & 36 of the Act has power to impound the insufficiently stamp instrument, further, was empowered to direct the payment of unpaid duty and penalty before admitting the document in evidence. The Court being an authority to receive a document in evidence is bound to impound the unduly stamped instrument. 12. The Court being an authority to receive a document in evidence is bound to impound the unduly stamped instrument. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner were directed to deposit stamp duty of Rs.60,14,000/-, further, a copy of the order was directed to be placed before the Principal Secretary, U.P Lucknow to identify the officials, who according to the Court were hand in glove with the petitioner throughout, thus, causing loss to the state exchequer. 13. I have heard Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Nimai Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent State, notice has not been issued to respondent Nos. 1 & 5 being performa respondents. 14. The petition is being decided on the consent of the parties without calling for counter-affidavit at the admission stage as per rules of the Court as no disputed question of facts are involved. 15. The question for determination is as to whether the Court lacked jurisdiction in impounding the instrument and directing the petitioner to duly stamp the instrument under Sections 33 & 35 of Chapter IV of Indian Stamp Act. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction and error of law, as Chapter IV deals with the situation when the instrument is not duly stamped. Section 33 & 35 read with sub-section (3) of Section 47A which deals with valuation of an instrument and also puts an embargo over the powers of the Collector by prescribing a period of limitation of maximum eight years. Further, the Additional District Magistrate (F & R), Muzaffarnagar had already passed an order, in proceedings under the Act on 15.7.2011, thus the proceedings for deficiency of stamp duty attained finality being not challenged by the Revenue in any Court of law, therefore, the District Judge could not assume upon himself the powers of an Assessing Authority, further, the document is a photo copy of the instrument, was already taken in evidence before the competent authority, hence the same cannot be impounded, at the appellate stage. 17. In rebuttal, the learned standing counsel would submit that the District Judge was fully competent to impound the instrument and pass an order under Section 33(1) read with Section 35, Section 33(1) is independent and no limitation is prescribed for exercising powers thereunder by the Court. 17. In rebuttal, the learned standing counsel would submit that the District Judge was fully competent to impound the instrument and pass an order under Section 33(1) read with Section 35, Section 33(1) is independent and no limitation is prescribed for exercising powers thereunder by the Court. Further, Section 36 read with Section 61 of the Act gives clear power to the District Judge/Court to decide such matters, hence the impugned order is legal, valid and within the jurisdiction of the Court. 18. Rival submission fall for consideration. 19. Chapter IV of the Act deals with instrument not duly stamped. Section 33 provides for examination and impounding of instrument. 20. For the purpose of the case, the relevant sub-sections of Section 33/35/36/47 A is extracted: 33. Examination and impounding of instruments: (1) Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and, every person-in-charge of a public office; except an officer or police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. (2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force of India when such instrument was executed or first executed: Provided that ____ (a)............ (b)........... (3) ......... (4) Where deficiency in stamp duty paid is noticed from the copy of any instrument, the Collector may suo motu or on a reference from any Court or from the Commissioner of Stamps or an Additional Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorised by the Board of Revenue in that behalf, call for the original instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the adequacy of the duty paid thereon, and the instrument so produced before the Collector shall be deemed to have been produced or come before him in the performance of his functions. (5) In case the instrument is not produced within the period specified by the Collector, he may require payment of deficit stamp duty, if any, together with penalty under Section 40 on the copy of the instrument: Provided that no action under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) shall be taken after a period of four years from the date of execution of the instrument: Provided further that with the prior permission of the State Government an action under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) may be taken after a period of four years but before a period of eight years from the date of execution of the instrument. 35. Instrument not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc—No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority or receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped: Provided that- (a) any such instrument not being {shall} be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of {a sum equal to ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof}; 36. Admission of instrument where not to be questioned—Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. 47-A. Under-valuation of the instrument—(1)(a)........ (b) .............. (c) ................ (d) ................ (2) ................ 47-A. Under-valuation of the instrument—(1)(a)........ (b) .............. (c) ................ (d) ................ (2) ................ (3) The Collector may, suo moto, or on a reference from any Court or from the Commissioner of Stamps or an Additional Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf, within four years from the date of registration of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property, not already referred to him under sub-section(1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value, of the property which is the subject for such instrument, and the duty payable thereon, and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in such instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon: Provided that, with the prior permission of the State Government, an action under this sub-section may be taken after a period of four years but before a period of eight years from the date of registration of the instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property. 21. Section 33 makes it mandatory upon every person ‘’which includes Court’ to examine the instrument produced before them in order to ascertain whether it is duly stamped. The duty to examine referred to in sub-section (2) is only to ascertain whether instrument is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law. 22. A Court on examining the instrument is bound to impound the instrument if not duly stamped, the decision finally rests with the Collector to determine whether the instrument was insufficiently stamped or not. 23. Section 35 prohibits admission in evidence of instruments chargeable with duty unless they are duly stamped. 24. ‘’Duly Stamped’ is defined in the Act to be “stamped in accordance with the law in force when such instrument is executed or first executed.” Thus the section prohibits admission in evidence of instrument not duly stamped. Privy council decision in Ram Rattn v. Parmanand, AIR 1946 PC 51 , held that unstamped document cannot be admitted in evidence even for a collateral purpose. 25. Privy council decision in Ram Rattn v. Parmanand, AIR 1946 PC 51 , held that unstamped document cannot be admitted in evidence even for a collateral purpose. 25. The distinction is further made between Section 35 of the Stamp Act and Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. Where an instrument which is not registered may be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes, whereas an instrument not duly stamped cannot be looked into for any purpose. The words ‘’for any purpose’ had been inserted by the legislature in order to get rid of the difficulties surrounding the question of what amounted to a collateral purpose. The only provision of the Act by which a Civil Court is authorized to realise deficiency in stamp is Section 35. 26. The Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments. It is not enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to meet the case of his opponents. The stringent provisions of the Act are conceived in the interest of revenue. Once that object is secured according to law, the party staking his claim on the instrument will not be defeated on the ground of the initial defect in the instrument. (Hindustan Steel Company v. Dilip Construction Co., (1969) 1 SCC 597 ) 27. Section 47-A empowers the revenue authorities to make an enquiry of the value of the property conveyed for determining the duty chargeable. 28. The scheme of Section 47-A is to deal with those cases where private parties by arrangement clandestinely under-valued the property with a view to deprive the Government of legitimate revenue by way of stamp duty. 29. Having noted the provision of the Act, I proceed to examine the rival contentions. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been that the instrument could not have been impounded being barred by time. The contention is untenable. 30. The proviso to Section 33 prohibits action under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of Section 33 after the prescribed period i.e four years. The second proviso merely extends the period by further four years within which the action can be taken after prior permission of the State Government. 31. The contention is untenable. 30. The proviso to Section 33 prohibits action under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of Section 33 after the prescribed period i.e four years. The second proviso merely extends the period by further four years within which the action can be taken after prior permission of the State Government. 31. There is no period of limitation provided under sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 33, therefore every person including the Court having by law to receive evidence is duty bound to examine every instrument whether is stamped with stamp of the value and description required by law. 32. The principle seems to be that a party to litigation cannot escape liability of payment of the stamp duty under the law whenever he wants to rely on the documents in order to prove his case. 33. There is a clear embargo for the Court to receive an insufficiently stamp documents in evidence or brought before the Court, but at the same time Section 33 authorises the Court to impound an insufficiently stamped document. A combined reading of Sections 33 and 35 makes it clear that a document cannot be admitted in evidence as long as it remains an insufficiently stamped document. But at the same time the Court has power to impound the document and once it is impounded it cannot be received in evidence and acted upon. 34. Section 35 read with Section 91 of Evidence Act excludes both the original instrument and secondary evidence of its contents if it is unstamped or insufficiently stamped. The document itself and secondary evidence of its contents being as inadmissible, no other evidence can under Section 91 of the Evidence Act be given to prove the terms of the instrument between the parties of which the document was intended to be evidence. 35. For the reasons and law stated herein above, I do not find any legality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 1.11.2014 passed by the District Judge Lucknow. 36. The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. No order as to costs. ——————