2014 Supreme(Kar) 892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N. Kumar, J.
Savithramma R.C. – Appellant
Vs.
Vijaya Bank and Ors. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 27073 of 2012(GM-CPC)
Decided On : 07.03.2014

Headnote:KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957 - Section 34: [N. Kumar, J] Marking of insufficiently stamped documents - Duty of Judge - Held, Once the document is marked without objection, no subsequent objection regarding its marking can be gone into and such document will have to be looked into while deciding the case on merits. This, however, does come in the way of the Court discharging the statutory duty contemplated under Section 33 of the Act. A duty is cast upon every Judge to examine every document, which is produced or comes before him in the performance of his functions. On such examination, if it appears to the Judge that such instrument is not duly stamped, an obligation is cast upon him to impound the same, This duty is to be performed by the Judge irrespective of the fact whether any objection to its marking is raised or not. Hence, there is a need for diligence on the part of the Court having regard to the statutory obligation under Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act mandates that an instrument, which is not duly stamped shall not be admitted in evidence. If any objection then and there. If this document is found to be insufficiently stamped, then in terms of the proviso (a) to Section 34, the Court shall call upon the person, who is tendering the said document to pay duty and ten times penalty and thereafter admit the document in evidence. If duty and penalty is not paid, the document shall not be admitted in evidence. If such an objection is not taken at the time of admitting the said instrument in evidence, and the insufficiently stamped document is admitted in evidence then Section 35 of the Act provides that such admission shall not be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. It has nothing to do with impounding the document. A duty is cast upon every Judge to examine every document that is sought to be marked in evidence. The nomenclature of the document is not decisive. The question of admissibility will have to be decided by reading the document and deciding it s nature and classification. The tendency to mark documents without inspection and verification should be eschewed. Even while recording ex parte evidence or while recording evidence in the absence of the Counsel for the other side, the Court should be vigilant and examine and ascertain the nature of the document proposed to be marked and ensure that it is a document which is admissible. The Court should not depend on objections of the other Counsel before considering whether the document is admissible in evidence or not. Section 33 of the Stamp Act casts a duty on the Court to examine the document to find out whether it is duly stamped or not, irrespective of the fact whether an objection to its marking is raised or not. Section 37 of the Act provides what the Judge has to do when he has collected duty and penalty under Section 34 of the Act and what he has to do, if the case does not fall under Section 34 of the Act.

        If the Judge has acted under Section 34 of the Act and collected duty and penalty and admitted the document in evidence, then under sub-section (1) of Section 37, he shall send to the Deputy Commissioner an authenticated copy of such instrument together with a Certificate in writing stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof and shall send such amount to the Deputy Commissioner or such person as he may appoint in this behalf. If the Judge does not act under Section 34 of the Act, but the document is insufficiently stamped and admitted in evidence though objection regarding admissibility cannot be raised subsequently that does not take away his obligation to impound the document under Section 33 of the Act. If the document is insufficiently stamped and if the Court has admitted such instrument in evidence without collecting duty and penalty, then the Judge shall proceed under Section 33 of the Act and impound the document. After impounding the document, the shall proceed under Section 37(2) of the Act and shall send the impounded instrument in original to the Deputy Commissioner to be dealt with under Section 39 of the Act. Therefore, impounding the document should not be confused to admission of document without objection regarding admissibility or on such objection being taken after collecting the duty and penalty. In the instant case, though the Trial Court has said that the documents are duly stamped, it has not discussed about the nature of the documents in order to find out whether it is duly stamped. Only after the said exercise, the Trial Court could have come to the conclusion whether the duty paid on the instrument is sufficient or not. Therefore, the Trial Court is directed to undertake the above exercise and pass appropriate orders and to proceed under Section 33 of the Act read with Section 37(2) of the Stamp Act, if the documents are found to be insufficiently stamped. Writ Petition stands disposed of.