Telangana HC: Photocopy of Document Cannot Be Stamped

Hyderabad: Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court ruled that a document’s photocopy cannot be stamped with a penalty. The judge also ruled that it was only the original document, and not the photocopy, that is required to be stamped. Deficit stamp duty and penalty cannot be collected on the basis of a photocopy. The judge dismissed a revision petition filed by Vangapalli Seetha Ramulu, plaintiff, in a suit instituted by him on the file of Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class Thorrur, Mahbubabad.

The plaintiff sought to rely on a simple sale deed executed in April 1994. The application was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it cannot be allowed to be introduced in evidence when it is not duly stamped, and a photocopy of such a document need not be stamped and cannot be acted upon in view of the bar contained in Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.

The trial court also observed that if photocopies of documents were permitted, it would circumvent the mandatory provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. A photocopy of the document, the original of which was lost, cannot be admitted in evidence, and such a document can neither be impounded nor accepted as secondary evidence.

In these circumstances the trial court was not inclined to allow the petition. It was the case of the petitioner that he had purchased the suit schedule property from the original defendant for a sale consideration of Rs 15,000 and was delivered possession of the property, and there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant with regard to the property; as such, the plaintiff filed this present suit.

During the pendency of the litigation, a couple of advocates appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, and the original sale agreement referred to could not be filed. Having lost it and some other papers, the petitioner lodged a police complaint in Danthalapally, which issued a certificate to the effect that the same could not be traced, the original having not been in the custody of the petitioner, he deserves to be permitted to lead secondary evidence by filing the document along with a copy of the certificate issued by the police concerned as secondary evidence. When the civil court rejected the plea, the plaintiff preferred the present revision.

Justice Nanda pointed out that apart from the petitioner, after the filing of the suit, two advocates appeared on his behalf, and the agreement was lost since it had been mixed up with some other papers. The names of the advocates are not mentioned, and it is not clear in whose office the subject agreement had been misplaced. Apart from all this, the certificate issued by the police shows that the petitioner lodged a complaint stating that he had lost the original land registration stamp paper of 254 sq. yards when he was proceeding from his house towards a photocopying centre at Narsimhulapet.

She added that as the date and description of the document were not correctly mentioned in the complaint, it would create serious doubts about the genuineness of the certificate. Aside from all this, there is inconsistency about the stand taken by the petitioner about the loss of the document; on one hand, he says that the loss of the document occurred on account of the change of ‘two’ counsels in whose offices the document had been misplaced, and quite inconsistently in the police complaint it is stated that he had lost the document when he was proceeding from his house to the photocopying centre.

In view of the same, the judge refused to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial court and dismissed the revision petition.

HC quashes brothel 'customer' case

Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against an accused, allegedly running a brothel house.

The judge was dealing with a criminal petition filed by Pendli Uday Kiran. The case of the prosecution was that on receiving credible information about a prostitution racket, Jeedimetla police raided the premises at Chintal and found the petitioner in the capacity of customer, along with the victim. Based on the complaint, a criminal case was registered against the accused.

A chargesheet was filed on the completion of investigation, cognisance was taken and the criminal case numbered. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was innocent and was falsely implicated in the crime. Counsel further argued that the victim, who was found in the premises, was not a trafficked woman and since the petitioner was listed as a ‘customer’, the offences alleged against him were untrue.

Hence, it was prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. On the other hand, the additional public prosecutor opposed the criminal petition citing specific allegations against the petitioner. After hearing both the parties, the judge observed that there were no specific allegations against the petitioner that he is running the brothel house, or he is living on the earnings of prostitution, or that he had procured the woman for prostitution. No material was produced by the prosecution.

The only allegation against the petitioner was that he was found in the premises as a ‘customer’. In view of the same, the judge held that the proceedings against the petitioner for the offences under the Code and the Act are liable to be quashed.