- (1.) THE petitioner instituted a suit (No. 39 of 1947) in the court of the Civil Judge at Faizabad. The suit was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators delivered an award and the Court passed a decree in terms of the award on 30-4-1948.
(2.) THE record was consigned to the record room of the. District Judge in due course and remained there for about five years. It was in 1953 that the Inspector of Stamps while inspecting the records in the record room of the District Judge noticed the award and the decree. He was of the opinion that these documents should have been stamped. He made a report to that effect to the Chief Inspector of Stamps and sent a copy thereof to the District Judge. The Junior Secretary to the Board of Revenue as the Chief Controlling Revenue authority also drew the attention of the District Judge to the Stamp Reporter's report. Some notes passed between the District Judge and the Civil Judge and also between the District Judge and the junior Secretary, Board of Revenue. Thereafter the District Judge impounded the documents on 7-7-1953, Three days later i. e. on 10-7-1953 he forwarded the award and the decree to the Collector of Faizabad under Section 38 (2) Indian Stamp Act (2 of 1899 ). The Stamp Officer of Faizabad exercising the powers of the collector under Section 40, Stamp Act issued notice to the petitioner on 27-8-1953 which was received by him on 26-9-1953. The petitioner has come to this Court and prays that the District judge's order dated 7-7-1953 impounding the documents and the Stamp Officer's order dated 27-8-1953, calling upon the petitioner to show cause, may be cancelled.
(3.) THE question that arises for decision is whether the District Judge had power to pass the order impounding the documents or not. The learned State counsel contends that the power of impounding the documents was exercised under Section 33, Stamp Act. This section so far as is material for purposes of this petition runs as follows: "every person in charge of a public office except an officer of 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. " The record room of the District Judge is a public office and the District Judge is in charge of the said office. It is true that in some judgeships a subordinate judicial officer e. g. a Small Cause court or a Civil Judge is generally placed in immediate charge of the record room but he exercises supervision thereof under the control and guidance of the District Judge. It is not known whether any such arrangement exists at Faizabad. But assuming that such arrangement does exist the District Judge does not cease to be in charge of the record room.;