SRI. ERIGALA RAM PULA REDDY vs M/S. GRIND STONE CRUSHER LLP

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R

TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 554 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

SRI. ERIGALA RAM PULA REDDY,
S/O BOREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF SRI. LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA
STONE CRUSHER,
R/AT NO. 2-74, NANDYAL,
KURNOOL DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-518 501.
AND ALSO AT
SRI. LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA STONE CRUSHER,
SITUATED AT SY NO. 66/1,
IN HOSAHUDYA VILLAGE,
BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA- 561207.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI ANJANEYA A B, ADVOCATE)

AND:












Digitally
signed by
PRAMILA G V
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA


M/S. GRIND STONE CRUSHER LLP
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 50/1,
2ND CROSS, OPP TO BRINDAVAN COLLEGE,
VINAYAKA LAYOUT, RMV 2ND STAGE,
BHOOPASANDRA, BENGALURU-560094.

REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS,
1. MR. REHAN REFAI,
2. MRS. UMME SALMA,
3. MRS. NEELOFAR BANU,
4. MRS. BIBI SARA
…RESPONDENT

- 2 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026


(BY SRI IRSHAD AHMED K,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS)
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 23.12.2025 PASSED BY HONBLE
REVISION COURT IN CRL.R.P. NO.310/2025 DISPOSED ON THE
FILE OF LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-61) 61 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
TH
FOR ORDERS ON 07 OCTOBER, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CAV ORDER
Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.

2. The petitioner before this Court is assailing the
order dated 23.12.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition
No.310/2025 on the file of LX Additional Sessions Judge,
Bangalore (CCH-61) and also the order dated 25.06.2025
passed in C.C.No.6425/2023 on the file of VII Additional Judge
and ACJM Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-3),
Bengaluru.

3. In terms of the aforementioned order, the Trial
Court has rejected I.A.No.1 filed by the accused in a proceeding

- 3 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026


under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI
Act') The Sessions Court, in Criminal Revision Petition No.
310/2025, has affirmed the order passed by the Magistrate.
Hence, the petitioner is before this Court, assailing the
concurrent findings.

4. The respondent in this petition filed a private
complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. To substantiate the
claim, the complainant produced Memorandum of
Understanding dated 19.09.2021 marked at Exhibit P1. The
accused/petitioner raised an objection to the admissibility of
the document on the ground that the said document is not
adequately stamped as required under the Karnataka Stamp
Act, 1957 ('Act, 1957').

5. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application
under Section 58(2) of the Act, 1957 to reject the said
document.

6. The Trial Court, on considering the contentions
raised by both sides, has held that Exhibit P1 can be considered
for collateral purpose and accordingly, rejected the application
filed by the accused.

- 4 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026



7. It is also noticed that the Trial Court has held that
objection was not raised when the document was marked.
Further, the Trial Court also took an exception to the manner in
which the application is filed, as the application was not
supported by an affidavit, and was accompanied by
memorandum of facts.

8. The learned Sessions Judge, in terms of the
impugned order, rejected the petition filed by the accused and
upheld the order of the Magistrate, albeit on different grounds.

9. Learned Sessions Judge took a view that in view of
the proviso to Section 34 read with Section 58(1) of the Act,
1957, the admission of an instrument in evidence is not barred
in criminal proceedings, except in the proceedings under
Chapter XII and Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 ('Code, 1973').

10. Learned Sessions Judge has held that the
proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act are governed by
Sections 262 to 265 of the Code, 1973 covered by Chapter XXI,
and as such the objection relating to inadequacy of the stamp
cannot be raised in a proceeding under Section 138 of NI Act.

- 5 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026



11. Learned Sessions Judge has also relied on the
judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ravikala H. vs.
1
K.V.Ramamurthy

12. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the impugned orders are unsustainable. It is urged
that if Sections 33 and 34 of the Act, 1957, are read together,
would lead to an inevitable conclusion that a document which is
insufficiently stamped is inadmissible in evidence and the Trial
Court as well as the Revisional Court erred in holding that the
document can be admitted in evidence, though it is
insufficiently stamped.

13. It is the submission that insufficiency of the
document goes to the root of the matter and the defect does
not get cured merely because the objection was not raised at
the time of marking. Thus, the learned Senior counsel urged
that the impugned orders be set aside and the document at
Exhibit P1 be held inadmissible in evidence.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant
would submit that Sections 33 and 34 of the Act, 1957 are not
applicable to any instrument which is tendered in evidence in

1
2011 SCC Online KAR 4526

- 6 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026


criminal proceedings other than the proceedings under Chapter
XII and Chapter XXXVI of the Code, 1973.

15. It is the submission that the proceedings under
Section 138 of the Act, do not fall either under Chapter XII or
Chapter XXXVI of the Code, 1973, as such the Revisional Court
has rightly held that the document is admissible in evidence.

16. In addition, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would submit that the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Ravikala H. ( supra) has held that the document,
though not sufficiently stamped, can be admitted in evidence in
a proceeding under Section 138 of NI Act.

17. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
by way of reply would submit that the Court has not considered
the interplay of Sections 33 and 34 of the Act, 1957 and the
judgment rendered without noticing the implication of Section
34 of the Act, 1957 is per incuriam, as such, would contend
that the said judgment has no application to the facts of the
case.

18. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
specifically referred to clause (a) of the proviso to Section 33 of

- 7 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026


the Act, 1957, to urge that the Magistrate or a Judge of a
Criminal Court can choose not to examine the sufficiency or
otherwise of the stamp duty on the instrument, only if he
thinks fit not to examine the issue of stamp duty. Thus, the
contention is, there is no absolute discretion conferred on the
Magistrate not to examine the sufficiency of the stamp duty in
a criminal case, and must assign a valid reason for not
examining the question of sufficiency of stamp duty. Since the
reasons are not assigned the Magistrate erred in not
impounding the document.

19. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.

20. Relevant portion of Sections 33 and 34 of the
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 reads as under:
33. Examination and impounding of instruments.-
(1) Every person having by law or consent of parties
authority to receive evidence, and every person in
charge of a public office, except an officer of police,
before whom any instrument, chargeable in his
opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the
performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to
him that such instrument is not duly stamped,
impound the same.

- 8 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026


(2) For that purpose every such person shall examine
every instrument so chargeable and so produced or
coming before him, in order to ascertain whether it
is stamped with a stamp of the value and
description required by the law in force in the State
of Karnataka when such instrument was executed
or first executed:
Provided that,—
(a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to
require any Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal
Court to examine or impound, if he does not
think fit so to do, any instrument coming
before him in the course of any proceeding
other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or
Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1898;
(b) xxx
(3) xxx
(a) xxx
(b) xxx.
34. 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

- 9 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026


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 not exceeding fifteen naye
paise only, or a mortgage of crop Article 35 (a) of
the Schedule chargeable under clauses (a) and (b)
of section 3 with a duty of twenty-five naye paise
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, or the amount
required to make up such duty, together with a
penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the
amount of the proper duty or deficient portion
thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten
times such duty or portion;
(b) 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;
(c) 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;

- 10 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026


(d) xxx.

21. On bare perusal of Section 33 (1),(2) and Clause
(a) to the proviso referred to above it is evident that the
Section 33(1) of the Act, 1957 mandates certain persons to
impound the insufficiently stamped document before whom it
comes, if such person is of the opinion that the document is
insufficiently stamped. Under Section 33(2) of the Act, 1957
such person is required to ascertain whether the instrument is
duly stamped when it was executed.

22. However clause (a) of the proviso to Section 33(2)
confers discretion on the Magistrate or a Judge of a Criminal
Court not to examine or impound the document if he thinks fit
to do so, in any criminal proceeding not falling under Chapter
XII or XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

23. Section 33 of the Act, 1957 deals with impounding
and examination of the sufficiency of stamp and non-
application of the said provision in case clause (a) of the
proviso to Section 33(2) of the Act, 1957 is attracted. Said
Section 33 does not deal with the admissibility or inadmissibility
of the insufficiently stamped document.

- 11 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026



24. However, Section 34 of the Act, 1957, deals with
inadmissibility of the insufficiently stamped document and its
admissibility on payment of stamp duty and penalty as the case
may be.

25. Now it is necessary to examine Clause (a) of the
proviso to Section 33 (2 ) and Section 34 (c) of the Act, 1957
which are as under.
Clause (a) to Section 33 (2 ) of the Act, 1957
nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any
Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal Court to examine or
impound, if he does not think fit so to do, any instrument
coming before him in the course of any proceeding other
than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898;
Section 34 (c ) of the Act, 1957
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;


26. From a reading of aforesaid clauses it is noticed
that Clause (a) of the proviso confers the discretion on the
Magistrate or a Judge not to examine or impound the

- 12 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026


insufficiently stamped instrument in a criminal proceeding not
falling under certain categories.

27. However, Clause (c) of the Section 34 of the Act,
1957 does not confer any discretion on the Magistrate or the
Judge, on the question of admissibility of an insufficiently
stamped instrument which is sought to be tendered in
evidence.

28. If the case in which the document is tendered in
evidence, is not falling under the chapter specifically named in
the said clause, then in a criminal proceeding the document is
admissible in evidence notwithstanding the fact that it is
insufficiently stamped. There is no discretion left to the
Magistrate or the Judge trying a criminal case not falling under
certain chapters mentioned in Clause(c) to deny the
admissibility of an instrument which is not sufficiently stamped.

29. It is relevant to notice that Section 33 deals with
impounding of the insufficiently stamped instrument and
examination on the sufficiency of stamp on the instrument.

- 13 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026



30. The question is whether the two provisions are
inconsistent with the each other and does it make either of the
provision redundant.

31. The answer is no. Both provisions operate in
different fields and serve different purposes. Section 33(1)
aims at ascertaining whether the instrument is insufficiently
stamped, impounding it if it is so.

32. Section 34 of the Act, 1957 provides for imposing
penalty if the insufficiently stamped instrument is sought to be
tendered in evidence.

33. Thus, if a document is impounded under Section
33(1) of the Act, 1957, it does not mean that the document is
inadmissible in evidence in all circumstances, if the stamp duty
and penalty is not paid as required under Section 34 of the Act,
1957. Such instrument is admissible in criminal proceedings
other than those falling under the chapters named in clause
(a) to proviso to Section 34 of the Act, 1957. In such
proceeding, even if the stamp duty or penalty is not paid the
document is admissible in evidence.

- 14 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026



34. In that event, the Magistrate or the Judge dealing
with a criminal case not governed by the chapters specifically
named in clause (a) of the proviso to Section 34 may bring the
matter to the notice of the competent authority under the Act,
1957, to take steps for recovery of the stamp duty and penalty
as provided under the said Act. But such exercise does not
make the document inadmissible under Section 34 of the Act,
1957.

35. In the instant case the magistrate has not chosen
to impound the document. The ratio laid down in the case of
Ravikala H. can be applied to take a view, that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, there is no need to impound
the document.

36. Hence, this Court does not find any error in the
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Though the
reasons assigned by the Magistrate may not be correct, the
order admitting the document in evidence and refusing to
impound the document has to be upheld for the reasons
assigned in this order.

- 15 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026



37. CONCLUSIONS:

(i) Section 34(c) provides for admissibility of insufficiently
stamped instrument in a criminal proceeding not falling
under the chapter XII or XXXVI of the Code of Criminal
Procedure 1898.

(ii) Because of the repeal of the Code, 1898, by the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the corresponding chapters of
the Code, 1973 have to be read into Section 33(1) and
34(c ) of the Act, 1957. Likewise as the Code, of 1973
has been repealed by Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
2023, the corresponding chapters of the BNSS-2023
have to be read into Section 33(1) and 34(c ) of the Act,
1957.

(iii) In a case where the Magistrate or the Judge by exercising
the discretion conferred under clause (a) of the proviso to
Section 33(2) of the Act, 1957, chooses to impound the
instrument for want of sufficient stamp, even then, in a
criminal proceeding not falling under the chapters
specifically named in Sections 33 or 34 of the Act, 1957,
the document though insufficiently stamped is admissible
in evidence.

- 16 -
CRL.P No. 554 of 2026



(iv) In the scenario referred in paragraph (iii) above, the
stamp duty or penalty legally leviable can be recovered
under Section 46 of the Act, 1957, but payment of stamp
duty cannot be a condition precedent to admit the
insufficiently stamped document in evidence.

38. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is dismissed .
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
GVP