Empress Vs. Janki

stamp act i of 1879, sections 34, 37, 40, 61 and 69 - execution of unstamped instrument--receipt of unstamped instrument--sanction by collector to prosecute--abetment. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. west, j.1. the effect of sections 37 and 40 of the stamp act i of 1879 is that every one must be allowed an opportunity of paying the penalty before the collector exercises his discretion under section 69. in many cases there may be a reasonable question as to whether any penalty is payable or not, and the duty may be recovered by an order which would be lost by a prosecution. he ought, at any rate, to do what the law commands as his duty before exercising a mere discretion. it is not abetment of the execution of an unstamped instrument to receive it, any more than acceptance of stolen property is abetment of theft. the court is of opinion that the decision of mr. ingle is right.