Arthur Wilson, J.

1. In my opinion the authorities which are referred to bythe learned Recorder in his order of reference are conclusive upon the questionwhich is now before us. The cases of Bull v. OSullivan L.R. 6 Q.B. 209, andCatty v. Fry L.R. 2 Ex. D. 265, which cases are entirely in accordance with theearlier authorities, are clear to show that in determining whether a documentis sufficiently stamped for the purpose of deciding upon its admissibility inevidence, you must look at the document itself as it stands, and not at anycollateral circumstances which may be shown in evidence; and exactly the samelaw is laid down in this Court in the judgment of Sir Barnes Peacock in thecase of Chandra Kant Mookerjee v. Kartik Charan Chaile 5 B.L.R. 103 in thepassage at page 105 of the report. That is conclusive of the present case; forit is clear, I think, that the present Stamp Act in India ought to be construedaccording to the same principles of construction as the Stamp Act in Englandand the earlier Stamp Acts in this country. In argument, apparently, before theRecorder, Section 67 of the Act was referred to. That section imposes penaltiesin certain cases upon persons who post-date bills of exchange. It is notnecessary to say whether a cheque is a bill of exchange within the meaning ofthat section, or what the effect of that section would be, in any case to whichit applied, upon the admissibility of a bill, because in the present case thereis no evidence apparently, and certainly no finding, of the circumstance whichalone could make the section applicable, namely, the intention to defraud. Theresult is that we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative.

Trevelyan, J.

2. I agree with this decision.

.

Ramen Chetty vs. Mahomed Ghose and Ors. (06.03.1889 - CALHC)