Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 369 of 1957. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated the January 27	 1956	 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) at Lucknow in Civil Misc. Application No. 17 of 1954 (0. J.). C. B. Agarwala and C. P. Lal	 for the appellant. V. D. Misra	 for the respondent. February 16. 	 J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad on a certificate granted by that court. The respondent filed a 99 petition under article 226 of the Constitution praying that the imposition of stamp duty by the Collector of Sitapur	 of Rs. 85	595/7/ and a penalty of Rs 5/ was against law and could not be realized against him and prayed that the order be quashed. 		 On September 12	 1948	 the	 respondent executed a wakf by oral recitation of Sigha and then it was written on a stamped paper which was signed by the respondent and attested by	 Witness. On September 15	 1948	 it was presented to the Collector for his opinion under section 31 as to the duty chargeable. As the Collector himself was in doubt	 he referred the matter to the Board of Revenue which	 after a fairly long time	 held that the document was liable to duty in accordance with article 58 of the Stamp Act. On October 29	 1951	 the Collector held that Rs. 85	598/7/ were payable as stamp duty and ordered that it be deposited within fifteen days. Notice to this effect was served on the respondent on November	 10	 1951. Thereupon the respondent filed a petition in the High Court under article 226 which was dismissed on November 3	 1952 on the ground that it was premature. On February 2	 1954	 a further notice was served upon the respondent to deposit the amount of the stamp duty plus the penalty of Rs. 5/ within a month otherwise proceedings would be taken against him under section 48 of the Stamp Act. Thereafter on March 1 1944	 the respondent filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High Court challenging the legality of the	 imposition of the stamp duty and the penalty and prayed for a writ of certiorari. A full bench of the High Court quashed the order of the Collector and the State of U.P. has come in appeal to this Court. The decision of this appeal depends upon the interpretation of ss	 31	 32 and 33 of the Stamp Act. The relevant portion of section 31 provides: 	 section 31(1) "When any instrument		 whether executed or not and whether previously stamped or not		 is brought to the Collector and. the person bringing it applies to have the opinion of that officer as to the duty (if any) with which it is chargeable	 and pays a fee of such amount (not exceeding five rupees and 100 not less than eight annas) as the Collector may in each case direct	 the Collector shall determine the duty (if any) with which	 in his judgment	 the instrument is chargeable. " It is admitted that the document in dispute was submitted to the Collector for his opinion under a. 31 and the opinion of the Collector was sought as to what the duty should be. Under section 32 of the Act when such an instrument is brought to the Collector	 under a. 31 and he determines that it was already fully stamped or he determines the duty which is payable on such a document and that duty is paid	 the Collector shall certify by endorsement on the instrument presented that full duty with which it is chargeable has been paid and upon such endorsement being made	 the instrument shall be deemed to be fully stamped or not chargeable to duty as the case may be ' Under the proviso to section 32	 the Collector is not authorised to make the endorsement if an instrument is brought to him a month after the date of its execution. Then follows section 33 which is as follows: section 33 "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 of police	 before whom an 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 t o ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in British India when such instrument was executed or first executed: Provided that (a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal Court to examine or impound	 if he does not think fit so to do	 any instrument coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding 101 under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure	 1898; (b) in the case of a Judge of a High Court	 the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under this section may be delegated to such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf. (3) For the purposes of this section	 in case of a doubt	 (a) the collecting Government may determine what offices shall be deemed to be public offices; and (b) the collecting Government may determine who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public offices. " The decision of this appeal depends upon the interpretation to be put upon the words "before whom any instrument chargeable. . . . is produced or comes in the performance of his functions". Dealing with these words the High Court held: " With all respect	 therefore	 we agree that the learned Judges deciding Chuni Lal Burman 's (1) case took a correct view of the words " is produced or comes in the performance of his functions" used in Section 33 of the Act to mean "that production of the instrument concerned in evidence or for the purpose of placing reliance upon it by one party or the other. " The High Court was also of the opinion that the object of paying the whole stamp duty was to get the instrument admitted into evidence or its being acted upon or registered or authenticated as provided in sections 32(3)	 35	 38(1) and 48(1) of the Stamp Act. Counsel for the State referred to the various sections of the Act; first to the definition section; Section 2(11) which defines what is "duly stamped"; section 2(14) which defines "instrument" and section 9(12) which defines "executed". He then referred to section 3 which lays down what "chargeable" means and then to section 17 which provides that all instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person in British India shall be stamped before or at the time of the execution. Certain other sections i.e. sections 35 and 38(1) were also (1) A.I.R. 1951 All. 851. 102 referred to and so also sections 40(1)(a)	 41	 42 and 48 but in our opinion it is not necessary to refer to these sections. What has to be seen is what is the consequence of a person applying to a Collector for his determination as to the proper duty on an instrument. The submission on behalf of the State (appellant) was that if an instrument whether 'stamped or not is submitted for the opinion of the Collector before it is executed	 i.e.	 it is signed	 then the Collector is required to give his determination of the duty chargeable and return the document to the person seeking his opinion but if the document is scribed on a stamped paper or unstamped paper and is executed then different consequences follow. In the latter case it was submitted that under section 33 the Collector is required to impound the document if he finds that it is not duly stamped. On the other hand it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on his giving his opinion the Collector becomes functus officio and can take no action under section 33. It is these two rival contentions of the parties that require to be decided in this case. After an inordinately long delay	 the Collector determined the amount of duty payable and impounded the document. Power to impound is given in section 33 of the Act. Under that section any Person who is a Judge or is in charge of a public office before whom an instrument chargeable with duty is produced or comes in the performance of his functions is required to impound the instrument if it appears to him not to be duly stamped. The question is does this power of impounding arise in the present case?. The instrument in dispute was not produced as a piece of evidence nor for its being acted upon e.g. registration	 nor for endorsement as under section 32 of the Stamp Act but was merely brought before the Collector for seeking his advise as to what the proper duty would be. The words "every person. . before whom any instrument. . is produced or comes in the performance of his functions" refer firstly to production before judicial or other officers performing judicial functions as evidence of any fact to be proved and secondly refer to other officers who have to perform any 103 function in regard to those instruments when they come before them e.g. registration. They do not extend to the determination of the question as to what the duty payable is. They do not cover the acts which fall within the scope of section 31	 because that section is complete by itself and it ends by saying that the Collector shall determine the duty with which	 in his judgment	 the instrument is chargeable	 if it is chargeable at all. Section 31 does not postulate anything further to be done by the Collector. It was conceded that if the instrument is unexecuted i.e. not signed	 and the opinion of the Collector is sought	 he has to give his opinion and return it with his opinion to the person seeking his opinion. The language in regard to exe cuted and unstamped documents is no different and the powers and duties of the Collector in regard to those instruments are the same	 that is	 when he is asked to give his opinion	 he has to determine the duty with which	 in his judgment	 the instrument is chargeable and there his duties and powers in regard to that matter end. Then follows section 32. Under that section the Collector has to certify by endorsement on the instrument brought to him under section 31 that full duty has been paid	 if the instrument is duly stamped	 or it is unstamped and the duty is made up	 or it is not chargeable to duty. Under that section the endorsement can be made only if the instrument is presented within a month of its execution. But what happens when the instrument has been executed more than a month before its being brought before the Collector? Section 31 places no limitation in regard to the time and there is no reason why any time limit should be imposed in regard to seeking of opinion as to the duty payable. Chapter IV of the Act which deals with instruments not duly stamped and which contains as. 33 to 48	 provides for impounding of documents	 how the impounded documents are to be dealt with	 Collector 's powers to stamp instruments impounded and how the duties and penalties are to be recovered. It would be an extraordinary position if a person seeking the advice of the Collector and not wanting to rely upon 104 an instrument as evidence of any fact to be proved nor wanting to do any further act in regard to the instrument so as to effectuate its operation should also be liable to the penalties which unstamped instruments used as above might involve. The scheme of the Act shows that where a person is simply seeking the opinion of the Collector as to the proper duty in regard to an instrument	 he approaches him under section 31. If it is properly stamped and the person executing the document wants to proceed with effectuating the document or using it for the purposes of evidence	 he is to make up the duty and under section 32 the Collector will then make an endorsement and the instrument will be treated as if it was duly stamped from the very beginning. But if he does not want to proceed any further than seeking the determination of the duty payable then no consequence will follow and an executed document is in the same position as an instrument which is unexecuted and unstamped and after the determination of the duty the Collector becomes functus officio and the provisions of section 33 have no application. The provisions of that section are a subsequent stage when something more than mere asking of the opinion of the Collector is to be done. Our attention was drawn to the observations of Rankin C. J. in Be Cooke and Kelly (1) but those observations are obiter as the High Court held that the reference under section 57 of the Stamp Act was incompetent. The doctrine of functus officio was applied in several cases: Collector	 Ahmednagar vs 	 Rambhau Tukaram Nirhali (2). In that case a certificate of sale had been signed but the certificate was not duly stamped which was pointed out when it was sent to the Sub Registrar for registration. The Sub Registrar informed the Judge about it and the Judge got back the certificate from the purchaser and thinking that he had power to impound the document and to impose a penalty asked for the opinion of the high Court and it was held that after he had signed it he was functus officio and could not act any further and could not impound it. The same principle was laid down in (1) Cal. 1171. (2) A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 105 Paiku vs Gaya (1) and in Chunduri Panakala Rao vs Penugonda Kumaraswami (2) and in our opinion as soon as the Collector determined the duty he became functus officio and he	 could not impound the instrument under a. 33 and consequential proceedings could not ') therefore	 be taken. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.

The respondent executed an instrument and presented it to the Collector for his opinion under section 31 Stamp Act as to the duty chargeable. The Collector		 after a reference to the Board of Revenue	 determined the duty payable. He then impounded the instrument and ordered that the ditty be deposited within 98 fifteen days. Later	 a notice was served upon the respondent to deposit the amount of stamp duty and penalty within one month and threatening that in default proceedings would be taken to recover them as arrears of land revenue. The respondent challenged the legality of the impounding of the instrument and demand of stamp duty and penalty. Held	 that after determination of the stamp duty the Collector became functus officio and could not impound the instrument or demand duty and penalty. Under section 31 the Col lector has merely to determine the proper amount of duty. If the person executing the instrument wants to effectuate the instrument or to use it for purposes of evidence he has to make up the duty and under section 32 the Collector makes the necessary endorsement. Section 33 empowers every person in charge of a public office before whom an instrument chargeable with duty is produced or comes in the performance of his functions to impound the instrument if it is not duly stamped. When an instrument is presented to the Collector under section 31 for determination of duty it cannot be said that it "is produced or comes in the performance of his functions" as contemplated by section 33. These words refer firstly to production before judicial or other officers performing judicial functions as evidence of any fact to be proved	 and secondly refer to other officers who have to perform any function in regard to those instruments when they come before them	 e.g.	 registration. In Re Cooke and Kelly	 Cal. 1171	 held obiter. Collector	 Ahmednagar vs Rambhau Tukaram Nirhali	 A.I.R. 	 Paiku vs Gaya	 I.L.R. and Chunduri Panakala Rao vs Penugonda Kumaraswami	 A.1	R. 	 referred to.