Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sridhar Singh Vs. the State

Sridhar Singh vs The State

Disposition Reference allowed Court Rajasthan Decided May 01, 1964
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/750980

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Ref. No. 69 of 1964
Subject
Civil
Disposition
Reference allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil
Outcome / disposition
Reference allowed
Acts & sections
Stamp Act, 1899 - Schedule - Article 4

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sridhar Singh

Respondent

The State

Legal References

Acts
Stamp Act, 1899 - Schedule - Article 4
Reported In
AIR1965Raj20; 1965CriLJ216

Excerpt

- orderd.m. bhandari, j.1. this is a reference by the sessions judge, ajmer recommending that the order dated 4th of december 1963 of the city magistrate, ajmer refusing to take on record un-stamped affidavits filed by one of the parties in the proceedings under section 145, cri. p. c. be set aside. the city magistrate took the view that such affidavits required to be stamped under the rajasthan stamp law (adaptation) act, 1952. under the rajasthan stamp law (adaptation) act, 1952, an affidavit when made 'for the immediate purpose of being filed or used in any court or before the officer of any court' is exempt from the payment of any stamp duty. 'immediate purpose' means 'direct purpose', and if the direct purpose of making an affidavit is that it is to be filed in any court or before the officer of any court, such an affidavit is exempt from the payment of stamp duty. in this case, there is no doubt that the affidavits were made for the purpose of filing in a court of law under proceedings under section 145 cri. p. c. in this view of the matter, the view taken by the city magistrate that the affidavits required to be stamped was wrong. the recommendation made by the sessions judge, ajmer proceeds on the correct view of law. the reference is therefore, allowed and the order of the city magistrate, aimer dated the 4th of december 1963 is set aside and ha is directed to take the affidavits an record even though they are un-stamped.

Full Judgment

ORDER

D.M. Bhandari, J.

1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer recommending that the order dated 4th of December 1963 of the City Magistrate, Ajmer refusing to take on record un-stamped affidavits filed by one of the parties in the proceedings under Section 145, Cri. P. C. be set aside. The City Magistrate took the view that such affidavits required to be stamped under the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952. Under the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952, an affidavit when made 'for the immediate purpose of being filed or used in any Court or before the officer of any Court' is exempt from the payment of any stamp duty. 'Immediate purpose' means 'direct purpose', and if the direct purpose of making an affidavit is that it is to be filed in any Court or before the officer of any Court, such an affidavit is exempt from the payment of stamp duty.

In this case, there is no doubt that the affidavits were made for the purpose of filing in a Court of law under proceedings under Section 145 Cri. P. C. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the City Magistrate that the affidavits required to be stamped was wrong. The recommendation made by the Sessions Judge, Ajmer proceeds on the correct view of law. The Reference is therefore, allowed and the order of the City Magistrate, Aimer dated the 4th of December 1963 is set aside and ha is directed to take the affidavits an record even though they are un-stamped.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial