SRI. RAMANJANEYA vs SRI. RAMASWAMY

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60311
CRL.P No. 2407 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010106042025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2407 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)

/ 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAMANJANEYA
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O KADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
D.N. DODDI POST, LAKKUR HOBLI,
MALURU TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563131

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S VISWESWARAIAH.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. RAMASWAMY
S/O LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/O KADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
D.N. DODDI POST, LAKKUR HOBLI,
MALURU TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563131

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MOHANA C., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS AND TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
MAGISTRATE IN C.C NO. 647/2013 DATED 21.09.2024 ON THE FILE
OF THE HONBLE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT MALUR
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, BY ALLOWING THE PETITION AND ETC.












Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60311
CRL.P No. 2407 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010106042025



THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER


1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs;
a) Call for the entire records and to set aside the
impugned order passed by the learned magistrate
in C.C No. 647/2013 dated 21.09.2024 on the file
of the Honble II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, at
Malur produced at annexure-a, by allowing the
petition.

b) Grant such other and further reliefs as are just
even including the costs of this petition in the
interest of justice and equity.


2. The respondent had filed a private complaint under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of
N.I.Act alleging that the cheque which has been
issued by the petitioner had been dishonoured for
insufficiency of funds. In the said proceedings, an
application came to be filed by the respondent under
Section 311 of the CrPC for reopening the stage of
evidence of the respondent, who is a complainant
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60311
CRL.P No. 2407 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010106042025


therein, and marked an unregistered agreement of
sale dated 09.06.2011.

3. The said application came to be opposed by the
petitioner on the ground that the agreement is
unregistered and stamp duty is not paid, requiring
the application to be dismissed. Pursuant thereto, the
application under Section 311 came to be allowed on
costs of Rs.500/- on 21.09.2024. It is challenging the
same the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the concerned document has been typed out
on a document sheet of Rs.2/- value and there is no
stamp duty which has been paid on the said
agreement and it was therefore required that the
learned Magistrate ought to have impounded the
document determining the stamp duty payable on
the said document and levy penalty the said
document before marking the document in evidence.

5. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.M.Shahul
Hameed vs. Jayanthi R.Hedge [AIR 2024 SC
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60311
CRL.P No. 2407 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010106042025


3339] more particularly para 18 thereof which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
18. On the face of such an order, it does not leave
any scope for doubt that on the date the GPA was
admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the
Trial Court did not deliberate on its admissibility,
much less applied its judicial mind, resulting in an
absence of judicial determination. In the absence of a
'decision' on the question of admissibility or, in other
words, the Trial Court not having 'decided' whether
the GPA was sufficiently stamped, section 35 of the
1957 Act cannot be called in aid by the respondent.
For section 35 to come into operation, the instrument
must have been "admitted in evidence" upon a
judicial determination. The words "judicial
determination" have to be read into section 35. Once
there is such a determination, whether the
determination is right or wrong cannot be examined
except in the manner ordained by section 35.
However, in a case of "no judicial determination",
section 35 is not attracted.

6. His submission by relying on Shahul Hameed is that
the trial court is required to deliberate on the
admissibility by applying the judicial mind and in the
absence of judicial determination, the document
could not have been admitted when the issue raised
was as regard the sufficiency of stamping of the said
document. On that ground, he submits that there
being a clear objection raised by the petitioner at the
time when Section 311 application had been filed, as
also when the document was marked in evidence,
the aspect of impounding the document ought to
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60311
CRL.P No. 2407 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010106042025


have been considered and necessary orders passed
by a learned Magistrate, the same not having been
done, this Court is required to intercede in the
matter and set aside the order of marking.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the
same. He refers to Section 33 of the Karnataka
Stamp Act, 1957, which is reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
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.
(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]
[Adapted by the Karnataka Adaptations of Laws Order,
1973 w.e.f. 1.11.1973] 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
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60311
CRL.P No. 2407 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010106042025


proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or
Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898;
(b)in the case of a Judge of the High Court, the duty of
examining and impounding any instrument under this
section may be delegated to such officer as the Court
appoints in this behalf.
(3)For the purposes of this section, in cases of doubt, the
Government may determine,-
(a)what offices shall be deemed to be public offices; and
(b)who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public
offices.


8. By relying on clause (a) to the proviso to subsection
(2) of Section 33, he submits that insofar as
proceedings before a Magistrate or a Judge of a
Criminal Court are concerned, there would be no
requirement for him to examine or impound a
particular document and as such, his submission is
that a document relied upon in criminal proceedings,
even if not adequately stamped would be marked in
evidence and, as such, there is no infirmity
committed by the learned Magistrate in not
impounding the inadequately stamped document in a
criminal proceeding.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60311
CRL.P No. 2407 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010106042025



9. Heard Sri.S.Visweswaraiah, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Mohana V., learned counsel for the
respondent and perused papers.
The short question that would arise for
consideration is whether in any proceedings
before the learned Magistrate or a Judge of a
criminal court, a document could be marked in
evidence even if insufficiently stamped when
objected to by the accused or any other party?


10. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 21.09.2024 passed by the learned
Magistrate allowing the application filed by the
respondent under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking
recall of the complainant for further examination and
production of the agreement of sale dated
09.06.2011.

11. The principal contention of the petitioner is that the
agreement of sale, being insufficiently stamped,
could not have been admitted in evidence without
being examined and impounded in accordance with
Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957.
Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in G.M. Shahul Hameed v.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60311
CRL.P No. 2407 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010106042025


Jayanthi R. Hedge, AIR 2024 SC 3339, to contend
that the objection regarding sufficiency of stamp
duty requires judicial consideration.

12. Section 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act provides for
examination and impounding of instruments.
However, clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2)
thereof carves out an exception in respect of
proceedings before a Magistrate or a Judge of a
Criminal Court, other than proceedings under
Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Cr.P.C. The said
proviso provides that a Magistrate or a Judge of a
Criminal Court is not required to examine or impound
an instrument if he does not think fit to do so.

13. The expression “if he does not think fit so to do”
contemplates an exercise of judicial discretion by the
Court. Where an objection is raised regarding the
sufficiency of stamp duty, the Court may consider
the objection and determine whether the instrument
requires examination or impounding in the
circumstances of the case. The decision relied upon
by the petitioner emphasises the significance of
judicial determination where an objection regarding
sufficiency of stamp duty is raised.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60311
CRL.P No. 2407 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010106042025



14. However, it is necessary to notice that the relief
sought in the present petition is confined to setting
aside the order dated 21.09.2024 allowing the
application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The
petitioner has not independently challenged the
marking of the agreement of sale in evidence or
sought any specific relief in respect of its admission.

15. It is not in dispute that, pursuant to the impugned
order, the complainant has already been recalled and
examined, and the agreement of sale dated
09.06.2011 has already been marked in evidence.
The Matter is now stated to be posted for judgment
st
in the 1 week of November 2026. In these
circumstances, setting aside the order allowing the
application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. would
not serve any purpose, as the relief sought has
already become infructuous.

16. The question regarding the sufficiency of stamp duty
payable on the agreement of sale, and the
consequence thereof, does not arise for adjudication
in the present petition, since the marking of the
document in evidence has not been challenged.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60311
CRL.P No. 2407 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010106042025



17. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as having
become infructuous.

18. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the admissibility or evidentiary value
of the agreement of sale dated 09.06.2011, or on the
merits of the complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.


Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru

Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE




PRS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16