Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sudhi Ranjan Das, Acting C.J., N.H. Bhagwati, T.L. Venkatarama Aiyyar, Syed Jaffer Imam and N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar

JUDGMENT

T.L. Venkatarama Aiyyar, J.

1. This appeal raises a question under section 5 of the Indian Stamp Act II of 1899. The respondent was, at the material time, the Managing Director of Messrs Bird and Co. Ltd., and of Messrs F. W. Heilgers and Co. Ltd., which were acting as Managing Agents of several Companies registered under the Indian Companies Act. He was also a Director of a number of other Companies, and had on occasions acted as liquidator of some Companies, as executor or administrator of estates of deceased persons and as trustees of various estates. On 4-7-1949 he applied to the Collector of Calcutta under section 31 of the Stamp Act for adjudication of duty payable on a power-of-attorney, marked as Exhibit A in the proceedings, which he proposed to execute. By that power, he empowered Messrs Douglas Chisholm Fairbairn and John James Brims Sutherland jointly and severally to act for him in his individual capacity and also as executor, administrator, trustee, managing agent, liquidator and all other capacities. The Collector referred the matter under section 56(2) of the Act to the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, who eventually referred it under section 57 to the High Court of Calcutta stating his own opinion that the stamp duty was payable on the power "for as many respective capacities as the principal executes the power". The reference was heard by a Bench consisting of the Chief Justice, Das, J. and S.R. Das Gupta, J., who differed in their opinion. The learned Chief Justice with whom Das, J. agreed, held that the different capacities of the executant did not constitute distinct matters for purposes of section 5 of the Act, and that the proper duty payable on the instrument was Rs. 10 under article 48(d) of schedule 1-A of the stamp Act as amended by section 13 of Bengal Act III of 1922. S.R. Das Gupta, J. was of the opinion that the different capacities of the executant were distinct matters for the purpose of sections 5, and that the instrument was chargeable with the aggregate amount of duty payable if separate instruments were executed in respect of each of those capacities. In the result, the question was answered in accordance with the opinion of the majority in favour of the respondent. Against that decision, the Board of Revenue, West Bengal has preferred this appeal by special leave, and contends that the instrument in question comprises distinct matters, and must be stamped in accordance with section