1. By this application under section 482 of the CrPC Ramesh Giri has challenged the order dated 9.1.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Revision No.11/2013 upholding the order of the trial Court and dismissing the objection raised by the accused petitioner regarding insufficiently stamped document.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the respondent complainant had filed a complaint for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) against the petitioner accused for settling a loan account with a Cooperative Society. The accused petitioner resisted the complaint by taking up a defence that a blank cheque was fraudulently obtained by respondent complainant and later on misused to file the present complaint. It came about that, while recording of the evidence of the complainant, he wanted a document dated 25.3.2011 to be marked as Exhibit P-1. The present petitioner accused objected to the document being first called a “receipt” since language in the document clearly indicated that it was a bond which was not properly stamped and on this ground it was inadmissible in evidence. This document was filed by the complainant as Annexure P-4. The trial Court has however, by order dated 11.12.2012 dismissed the objection of the accused petitioner that the proceedings under section 138 of the Act are quasi civil in nature and that the provisions of section 35 of the Stamp Act would be attracted.

3. Being aggrieved accused petitioner preferred a criminal revision before the revisional Court and the revisional Court had dismissed the same, vide order dated 9.1.2013. And hence, the present petition under section 482 of the CrPC.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that both the Courts below had failed to consider that the documents were required to be properly stamped under section 35 of the Stamp Act if it is to be accepted in evidence. Otherwise it has to be impounded and only after payment of stamp duty fees and penalty as imposed by the stamp collector, the documents could have been exhibited. Counsel relied on Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore [(2011)4 SCC 593], to state that the apex Court had while considering the gravity of the Indian Penal Code or other criminal offences vis-a-vis the Negotiable Instrument Act held that an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, is almost in the nature of a civil wrong which has been given criminal overtones. Counsel submitted that the offence was a quasi civil in nature and section 35 of the Stamp Act would therefore, be naturally attracted. Placing reliance on P.K.M. Caps and Polymers Pvt. Ltd v. Sri K. Vishnu; Prasad s/o K..... [2008(2) Kar. LJ 276], whereby the High Court of Karnataka has considered the case that an agreement of sale, which was written on a white paper which ought to have been written on a stamped paper and the documents namely, the agreement and the cancellation deed were not duly stamped and Court held that the said document is inadmissible in evidence and although in the said case the Court had held that the objection was raised by the accused petitioner after the document has been exhibited. Counsel submitted that in the instant case the objection was properly raised at the initial stage itself by the applicant. Hence, Counsel submitted that the impugned order be set aside.

5. Counsel for the respondent, per contra has vehemently opposed the submissions put forth by the counsel for the applicant and has fully supported the orders passed by both the Courts below. Counsel submitted that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code were not applicable in a criminal case; similarly section 35 of the Stamp Act also cannot be taken into consideration. Even considering the cases Kaushalya Devi Massand and PKN Caps and Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Counsel urged that the Revisional Court had categorically given a finding that both the authorities