Functus officio and stamp duty penalty recovery: a trial court cannot later impound an admitted document after judgment.

An unstamped document that had already been produced, admitted in evidence and acted upon could not support recovery of penalty from the executant under Section 29 of the Stamp Act; recovery, if available at all, had to proceed under Section 44 and only as part of costs in the decree. After judgment, the Subordinate Judge was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to later impound the document and levy penalty. The impounding order was therefore illegal and was set aside, while the recovery decree on the adopted basis could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the penalty realised on an unstamped document, after it had been produced, admitted in evidence and acted upon by the Court, could be recovered from the executant under Section 29 of the Stamp Act instead of under Section 44 of the Stamp Act. (ii) Whether the Subordinate Judge, after admitting the document in evidence and delivering judgment, retained jurisdiction to impound the document and levy penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the penalty realised on an unstamped document, after it had been produced, admitted in evidence and acted upon by the Court, could be recovered from the executant under Section 29 of the Stamp Act instead of under Section 44 of the Stamp Act.

Analysis: The document had been filed in Court, admitted in evidence and acted upon before judgment was delivered. In that situation, liability to recover the amount did not arise under Section 29, which applies where the document is not produced before Court. Recovery could only be sought under Section 44 of the Stamp Act, and even then only if the amount had been included in the costs at the time of decree.

Conclusion: Recovery under Section 29 was unavailable, and the suit for recovery of the penalty was not maintainable on that footing.

Issue (ii): Whether the Subordinate Judge, after admitting the document in evidence and delivering judgment, retained jurisdiction to impound the document and levy penalty.

Analysis: Once the document had been admitted in evidence and the suit had been decided, the Subordinate Judge became functus officio in relation to that document. The later impounding order was therefore beyond jurisdiction. The proper course, if any, was for the Collector to act under Section 61 of the Stamp Act.

Conclusion: The impounding order was illegal and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded, the recovery decree could not stand on the basis adopted, and the impounding order was quashed, leaving the petitioner entitled to seek refund from the revenue authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: After a document has been admitted in evidence and judgment has been delivered, the trial court is functus officio and cannot later impound the document; any challenge to its admission must be pursued through the statutory remedy provided under the Stamp Act.

---