In G.M. Shahul Hameed v. Jayanthi R. Hegde (Civil Appeal No. 1188 of 2015) [2024] 7 S.C.R. 316 : 2024 INSC 493, the issue raised is whether upon admission of an instrument in evidence and its marking as an exhibit by a court (despite the instrument being chargeable to duty but is insufficiently stamped), such a process can be recalled by the court in exercise of inherent powers saved by Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
The Hon’ble SC held that “The presiding officer of a court being authorised in law to receive an instrument in evidence, is bound to give effect to the mandate of sections 33 and 34 and retains the authority to impound an instrument even in the absence of any objection from any party to the proceedings. Such an absence of any objection would not clothe the presiding officer of the court with power to mechanically admit a document that is tendered for admission in evidence. The same limitation would apply even in case of an objection regarding admissibility of an instrument, owing to its insufficient stamping, being raised before a court of law. Irrespective of whether objection is raised or not, the question of admissibility has to be decided according to law. The presiding officer of a court when confronted with the question of admitting an instrument chargeable with duty but which is either not stamped or is insufficiently stamped ought to judicially determine it. Application of judicial mind is a sine qua non having regard to the express language of sections 33 and 34 and interpretation of pari materia provisions in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by this Court. However, once a decision on the objection is rendered – be it right or wrong – section 35 would kick in to bar any question being raised as to admissibility of the instrument on the ground that it is not duly stamped at any stage of the proceedings and the party aggrieved by alleged improper admission has to work out its remedy as provided by section 58 of the 1957 Act.“
SC relied upon the decision of in Javer Chand and others v. Pukhraj Surana [1962] 2 SCR 333. There, provisions of section 36 of the Indian Stamp 1899 Act, which is pari materia section 35 of the 1957 Act, came up for consideration. A Bench of four Hon’ble Judges of this Court held that when a document’s admissibility is questioned due to improper stamping, it must be decided immediately when presented as evidence. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
“4. *** Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped, or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided then and there when the document is tendered in evidence. Once the court, rightly or wrongly, decides to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned, the matter is closed. Section 35 is in the nature of a penal provision and has far-reaching effects. Parties to a litigation, where such a controversy is raised, have to be circumspect and the party challenging the admissibility of the document has to be alert to see that the document is not admitted in evidence by the court. The court has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. The record in this case discloses the fact that the hundis were marked as Exts. P-1 and P-2 and bore the endorsement ‘admitted in evidence’ under the signature of the court. It is not, therefore, one of those cases where a document has been inadvertently admitted, without the court applying its mind to the question of its admissibility. Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and the trial has proceeded all along on the footing that the document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, Section 36 of the Stamp Act comes into operation. Once a document has been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the trial court itself or to a court of appeal or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same court or a court of superior jurisdiction.”
The SC therefore held that the pivotal aspect emerging for consideration is that whether the Trial Court did judicially determine the question of admissibility or not. If it did and admitted the insufficiently stamped instrument, its admissibility cannot later be challenged except by invoking revision provision u/s 61 of the Indian Stamp Act.