# Punching of second punch hold on stamps - **Citation:** C.L.No.15/Stamps - **Court:** Allahabad High Court - **Decided:** 1973-02-19 - **Case number:** C.L.No.15/Stamps - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/punching-of-second-punch-hold-on-stamps-163829 - **Pages:** 2 ## Text 452 Punching of second punch hold on stamps G.L.No. 39/44-40(8) dated 3rd December, 1929 Rule 191, Chapter VII of the General Rules (Civil), 1957, is practically a replica of rule 259, Chapter VIII of the Stamps Manual. It is intended to ensure that the record - keeper or one of his assistants should personally see every court-fee label. He has to see that it is properly defaced to ensure that it cannot be fraudulently utilized a second time and also that the proper court fee has been paid. The mere punching of a second hole is not all; it is the dating of each document, which ensures its inspection by the record room staff. The date on the document should not be stamped, but should be made by the record - keeper in his own handwriting. All record -keepers should be warned that they are personally responsible for strictly complying with the rule in question. C.L.No.15/Stamps 947/G dated 21st May, 1963 read with C.E.No. 50/VIIId-149 dated 21st August, 1963 In order to prevent reuse of court fee stamps the attention of all the presiding officers, is invited to section 30 of the Court Fees Act and rules 252 to 261 of the Stamps Rules which lay down that no document shall be filed or acted upon in any court or office until the stamps affixed thereto have been cancelled and they are also required to pay personal attention to see that strict compliance of the aforesaid provisions of law is made by the presiding officers of courts and the officials concerned. Failure to punch and cancel stamps should be taken serious notice of and suitable action should be taken against the negligent officials. Folios and adhesive court-fee labels C.L.No.109/VIII-149 dated 22nd October, 1952 In court fee stamps bearing the design of Ashoka Pillar, the top of the Pillar should be punched for purposes of cancellation under section 30 of the Court fees Act. G.L.No.52/86 dated 7th December, 1933 read with Board of Revenue letter No.3594/S-258-c dated 15th November, 1933 G.L.No. 31/86 dated 28th May, 1934 modified by C.L.No. 35-56-1 dated 2nd June, 1934 and C.L.No.71-180-34(1) dated 18th July, 1936 and C.L.No.5/8 b-82 dated 8th January, 1952 Only one kind of copy folio of the value of Re.0.25 is printed in this State and adhesive court fee labels of certain denominations are surcharged with the words ―For copies only‖ so that extra payment may be made by means of such labels. The amendment of rule 257 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, made under Finance Department notification no. S-458/X-504-48, dated the 21st February, 1951 published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette, part I, dated the 2nd March, 1951 necessitating the cancellation and punching of copy labels as soon as they are filed in any court or office does not apply to copy folios and copy labels affixed thereto which are filed with applications for copies. 453 They should, therefore, be punched at the time of issue of copy and that where an application for copy is rejected such copy folios and labels should be returned to the party concerned unpunched. Court fee labels surcharged ―For copies only‖ may be accepted to complete the payment for copies issued on copy folios but they should not be affixed to the copy folio until there is a certainty that the copy will be granted. In the case of loose copy labels filed in order to make up the copying fee in certain cases, the amended rule shall apply and such labels shall be punched as soon as they are filed. In case they have to be returned on account of the application for copy being rejected, or for some other reason, the party concerned can, under para 1357 of the Revenue Manual, claim a refund of the value of such labels after deduction of 6 n.p (Re.0.06) in a rupee or fraction thereof. The cancellation order should be written in red ink ―Cancelled‖. This is to ensure that the labels are not used again. In affixing the labels, care must be taken to ensure that the head on the label is nearest the edge of the folio. This is to ensure that no written or typed matter is defaced if the label is punched. In no circumstances should an adhesive stamp be affixed in the centre of the folio. Cancellation of impressed stamps G.L.No. 12/VIII-b-149 dated 13th April, 1949 Impressed stamps on probate, letters of administration, certificates, or copies should not be punched when probate, letters of administration, certificates and copies are issued. They may, however, be defaced by the use of a rubber stamp mentioned in rule 254 of the Stamp Rules as provided in rule 252(b) of the said rules. No court-fees payable under rule 159(i) General Rules (Civil) C.L.No.18/67-1(8) dated 24th April, 1939 No duty under the Stamp Act or the Court Fees Act is payable in respect of a copy filed under rule 159(i) of General Rules (Civil), 1957. C.L.No.45/VIII-b-151 dated 23rd May, 1973 Directions contained in letter no. 3/Stamps-978(2), dated February 19, 1973, of the Inspector General of Stamps may be strictly followed so that use of forged court fee stamps or fraudulent reuse thereof may be prevented. (ii) Deficiency C.L.No. 22/180-20(5) dated 2nd March, 1936 It is the duty of the presiding officer of each court to take proper steps to ensure that the inspection note of the Inspector of Stamps is laid before him without delay. C.L.No. 27/VII-f-26 dated 10th March, 1953 Attention of all presiding officers is invited to the mandatory nature of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 according to which the question as to deficiency in court-fee raised by Inspector of Stamps has to be decided by the court before proceeding further with the case.