HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5622 of 2008 ORDER: The order under challenge in this revision is the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur in I.A. No.175 of 2008 in O.S. No.137 of 2002 dated 04.06.2008. By the said order, the Court below itself impounded the document, and directed its Chief Ministerial Officer to check the agreement of sale dated 05.02.1999 and collect stamp duty and penalty, if necessary. Sri Ch. Krishna Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that it is not open to the Court to impound the document and that, under Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, the Court has merely to send the document to the Collector who is empowered to impound the document and collect the deficit stamp duty and penalty. Learned Counsel would rely on the judgment of this Court in Paladugu Venu v. Vakkavanthula Srujana[1]. On the other hand Sri K.S. Gopalakrishnan, Learned Counsel for the respondent, would draw attention of this Court to Section 33 of the Stamp Act, in support of his submission that, since the Court below is receiving evidence, a duty is cast on it to impound the document and collect the deficit stamp duty and penalty thereupon. Learned Counsel would rely on Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi[2] in this regard. I n Paladugu Venu, the plaintiff had filed an application requesting the Court to send the receipt to the Collector for impounding, and for collection of deficit stamp duty, on the ground that the receipt was made on a plain paper without stamp duty. The Court below held that there was no stamp duty payable and as such the question of any deficit stamp duty would not arise. It is in this context that this Court held that, before seeking to make the inadmissible document admissible in evidence, the Court below ought to have sent the document to the Collector for impounding and for collection of stamp duty. Section 33(1) of the Indian Stamp Act requires every person having by law or authority to receive evidence, before whom any instrument, chargeable with stamp duty, is produced to impound the said document if such document is not duly stamped. The person authorized to receive evidence under Section 33(1), in the present case, is the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur and as such he was required, in terms of Section 33(1), to impound the document. Section 38(1), on which reliance is placed by Sri Ch. Krishna Reddy, requires a person who impounded the document under Section 33 and had admitted such an instrument in evidence upon payment of penalty as provided by Section 35 or of duty as provided by Section 37, to send to the Collector an authenticated copy of the instrument together with a certificate in writing stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof, and to send such amount to the Collector. All that Section 38(1) requires is for the person who receives evidence, (in this case the Court below), to send an authenticated copy of the impounded instrument, along with stamp duty and penalty collected thereupon, to the District Collector. Section 38(1) does not bar a person receiving evidence from impounding a document. I n Smt. P. Laxmi Devi, the Supreme Court held that Section 33(1) mandates the person, before whom the document is produced, to impound the document in question. The order of the Court below, directing impounding of the document and calling upon the Chief Ministerial Officer to check the said document and collect stamp duty and penalty if necessary, does not suffer from any illegality necessitating interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 08.07.2010 MRKR [1] 2005(6) ALT 819 [2] 2008(2) SCJ 723