The Aryavarth Express
Agency (Karnataka): The Karnataka High Court has upheld a trial court’s decision to reject the marking of a photocopy of an insufficiently stamped unregistered agreement in a case related to the offense punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The High Court emphasized the importance of proper foundational evidence and the court’s discretion in dealing with such documents.
The case arose from a criminal complaint (C.C.No.343/2021) pending before the Court of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Belthangady, D.K. District, where the petitioner, who is the accused in the case, sought to mark a photocopy of an unregistered agreement to sell dated 23.03.2021 during the cross-examination of PW-1 (prosecution witness). Although PW-1 had admitted his signature on the document, the trial court rejected the accused’s request to mark the photocopy, stating that it did not come within the purview of secondary evidence.
Aggrieved by the trial court’s order, the accused approached the Karnataka High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking to set aside the order.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that since the complainant had admitted his signature on the document, the trial court should have allowed the marking of the photocopy. He contended that when the signature is admitted, there is no need for filing an application seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence. The counsel further submitted that even an insufficiently stamped document can be marked in criminal proceedings, and any objection raised by the complainant could be considered at the final stage.
However, the High Court, after examining the relevant legal provisions and precedents, dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court’s decision.
The High Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in H.SIDDIQUI (DEAD) BY LRS. VS A.RAMALINGAM – (2011)4 SCC 240, where it was held that merely admitting a signature on a photocopy of a document does not lead to the admissibility of the document or its contents. The court has an obligation to examine whether the documents produced have any probative value.
The High Court emphasized that secondary evidence must be authenticated by factual foundation, and normally, an application is required to be filed before the court after laying down the necessary foundation for permitting a party to adduce secondary evidence. The party seeking to introduce secondary evidence must explore all possibilities to secure primary evidence and satisfactorily explain the reasons for its absence.
The court also noted that in the present case, there was no foundation available on record based on which permission could be granted to adduce secondary evidence.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL VS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHER – AIR 2001 SC 1158, the High Court observed that while the Supreme Court had suggested a procedure for dealing with objections raised during the evidence-taking stage, it had also clarified that if the objection relates to the deficiency of stamp duty on a document, the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further.
The High Court further relied on the recent Supreme Court judgment in VIJAY VS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1585, which laid down the principles for examining the admissibility of secondary evidence. The Supreme Court had observed that if a document required to be stamped is not sufficiently stamped, a copy of such a document as secondary evidence cannot be adduced.
Based on these legal principles, the Karnataka High Court concluded that the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s request to mark the photocopy of the insufficiently stamped document, merely because the complainant had admitted his signature on it.
The High Court’s decision highlights the importance of following proper procedures and laying down the necessary foundation when seeking to introduce secondary evidence in court proceedings. It also reaffirms the court’s discretion in dealing with objections related to the admissibility of documents, particularly those that are insufficiently stamped.
The ruling is expected to provide clarity on the admissibility of photocopies of insufficiently stamped documents in criminal proceedings, especially in cases where a party seeks to rely on such documents to support their case.
Legal experts believe that the judgment will serve as a reminder to litigants and legal practitioners to ensure that proper foundational evidence is presented and that all necessary steps are taken to secure primary evidence before seeking to introduce secondary evidence in court.
The case also underscores the significance of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which requires certain documents to be duly stamped for them to be admissible as evidence in legal proceedings. The Act aims to prevent the use of insufficiently stamped or unstamped documents, which could be used to evade taxes or create legal uncertainties.
