HARIOM AGRAWAL versus PRAKASH CHAND MAL VIYA

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 08-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HARIOM AGRAWAL 
v. 
PRAKASH CHAND MAL VIYA 
OCTOBER 8, 2007 
B 
[B.N. AGRA WAL, P.P. NAOLEKARAND 
P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] 
. .J, 
Stamp Act, 1899-ss. 2(14), 33, 35, 37 and 48B-lmpoundingof 
c document-In a suit photocopy of a document accepted in secondary 
evidence-On the ground that original was lost-Original document 
bearing the stamp of sufficient amount, but of improper description-
Order of admission of the document insecondary evidence set aside-
Order for impounding the document-Correctness of-Held : 
D Impounding of a document can be done only when the document is an 
instrument within meaning of s. 2(14) i.e. original document-
Photocopy of a document cannot be impounded-It also cannot be 
-t----
accepted as secondary evidence-Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules, 
1942-r. 19-EvidenceAct, 1872-s. 63. 
E 
Agreement was entered into by the parties herein. Such 
agreement was required to be affixed a stamp of Re. 1/- under 
Schedule I, Item 42 of Stamp Act, 1899. The document was affixed 
with a no to rial stamp of Rs. 4/-instead under the statutory provision. 
In the suit between the parties, appellant filed an application 
:>-
)' 
F 
for acceptance of the photocopy of the agreement as a secondary 
evidence, on the ground that original thereof was stolen. Trial Court 
admitted the same as secondary evidence. In a Writ Petition, against 
the order, High Court setting aside the order of trial court, remitted 
G the matter to decide the question as to whether a photocopy of an 
).__-
improperly stamped original document could be received as 
secondary evidence. 
Trial Court ordered for impounding of the document, it being 
H 
772 
--} 
HARIOM AGRAWAL v. PRAKASH CHAND MAL VIY A 
773 
insufficiently stamped. Document was sent to the Collector of Stamps A 
for affixing appropriate stamp duty. Challenge to this order was 
dismissed by trial court in Review Petition. In Writ Petition, 
thereagainst, High Court held that such document could not be 
admitted in evidence, neither could it be impounded nor accepted in 
secondary evidence. Hen\:e the present appeal. 
B 
The question for consideration was : Whether the Court could 
impound the photocopy of the instrument (document) of improper 
description exercising its power under the provisions of the Indian 
Stamp Act, 1899 ? 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD : 1. Section 33 of Stamp Act, 1899 gives power to the 
authority to check whether the instrument has been duly stamped 
and in case it is not duly stamped, to take steps to impound the same 
by proper stamp duty on the said document. This power can be D 
exercised in regard to an 'instrument'. The instrument as per 
definition under Section 2(14) has a reference to the original 
instrument. [Paras 6 and 7] (777-D, F] 
2. It is an admitted fact that the photostat copy which is sought E 
to be produced as secondary evidence does not show that on the 
original agreement proper stamp duty was paid. The photostat copy 
of the agreement shows that the original agreement carried only a 
notarial stamp of Rs. 4/-. Thus the original instrument bears the 
stamp of sufficient amount but ofimproper description. 
F 
(Para 5] (776-E] 
3. Sections 33 or 35 are not concerned with any copy of the 
instrument and party can only be allowed to rely on the document 
which is an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(14). There is 
no scope for the inclusion of the copy of the document for the G 
purposes of Stamp Act. Law is now no doubt well settled that copy 
of the instrument cannot be validated by impounding and this cannot 
be admitted as secondary evidence under Stamp Act, 1899. 
(Para 8] (780-B, C] 
H 
\,/ 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
State of Bihar v. Mis. Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers Ltd., 
~ 
AIR (1962) SC 110 and Jupudi Kesava Rao v. Pulavarthi Venkata 
Subbarao and Ors., AIR (1971) SC 1070, relied on. 
4. Under Section 37 of Stamp Act, the State Government is 
B authorized to make rules providing therein to impound any instrument 
which bears a stamp of sufficient amount but ofimproper description 
and on payment of chargeable duty to certify it to be duly stamped 
and to treat such document as duly stamp, 1 as on the date of its 
execution. By virtue of Rule 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Stamp Rules, 
C 1942, the Collector of Stamp is authorized to receive the proper 
stamp duty on an instrument which bears a stamp of proper amount 
but of improper description, and on payment of the adequate duty 
c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.