Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Rachakonda Ramakoteswara Rao And Ors. vs Manohar Fuel Centre And Anr. on 28 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)ALD638
ORDER T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.
1. A short question that fails for consideration in this revision petition is as to whether a document which has not been duly stamped or unstamped can be received in evidence even only for a limited purpose of looking at the signature of an attestor so as to ultimately show the manner in which the signatory signed on the document?
2. Admittedly, the document sought to be introduced has no bearing on the merits of the case and is not being relied upon for any other purposes except the limited purpose of proving the signature of the attestor to that document. Even then, can it be received in evidence is the question. Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act (for brevity 'the Stamp Act') is the relevant Section for consideration in the context and the same may be extracted hereunder thus:
"35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc. :--No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties, authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped:
Provided that--
(a) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty of twenty paise or a mortgage of crop Article 36(a) of Schedule I-A chargeable under Clause (aa) or (bb) of Section 3 with a duty of forty paise or a bill of exchange or promissory note, shall subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of fifteen rupees or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds 'fifteen rupees' of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion;
(b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped would be admissible in evidence against him then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him on payment of a penalty of three rupees by the person tendering it;
(c) where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped;
(d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898;
(e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the Government or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by Section 32 or any other provision of this Act." [Emphasis is mine]
3. A perusal of the said provision shows that once the document, which is chargeable with duty is not duly stamped, shall not be admitted in evidence. The bar engrafted under Section 35 of the Stamp Act is an absolute bar and, therefore, the document cannot be used for any purpose, unlike the bar contained in Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act (for brevity 'the Registration Act'). Under the proviso incorporated under Section 49 of the Registration Act, the document can be looked into even if it is not registered for collateral purpose or other purpose specified inter alia in the proviso. The learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent endeavours to make a distinction between the expression "as evidence" and the other expression "in evidence" and contends that although a document cannot be received as evidence, the same can be looked into for a collateral matter for the purpose of showing the signature, I am afraid, I cannot accede to the said contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent, having regard to the fact that it is an absolute bar engrafted under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Without receiving the document in evidence, it cannot be used even for the limited purpose. For admitting the document in evidence, it is got to be duly stamped although the purpose might be a different one. Therefore, the document in the first instance shall have to be received or admitted in evidence. Even for that the bar contained under Section 35 of the Stamp Act operates.
4. The legal position on the point is no more res integra and is squarely covered by a Judgment of this Court in Sanjeeva Reddi v. Johanputra Reddi, . The expression "for any purpose" has been the subject-matter of consideration under the said judgment. It has been held as under:
"No part of a document (be it a single sentence, a word or a signature) which is chargeable with duty can be received in evidence, even if that document is sought to be admitted only for a collateral purpose."
All this will not have any significance once the requisite stamp duty and penalty payable in accordance with the Rules are paid.
5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly at the threshold.