Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Allowing Validation of Photocopy

By Adv. M. N. Khan
ChandrapurLawyer.com

Introduction

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Raman Wadhwa v. Satnam Singh & Others (CR-5769-2025), has delivered an important and clarificatory ruling on the law governing secondary evidence and stamp duty, particularly in cases where the original instrument is not available on record.

The judgment revisits the inter-relationship between the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and draws a clear boundary on the jurisdiction of trial courts while dealing with photocopies or partially original documents.

Setting aside the Trial Court’s order, the High Court held that a copy of a document cannot be validated for stamp purposes and that permitting such validation amounts to exercise of jurisdiction not vested in law.

Factual Background

During the pendency of a civil trial, one of the parties sought permission to lead secondary evidence on the ground that the original instrument was not available. Along with this, permission was sought to validate a photostat copy for stamp duty purposes.

The Trial Court allowed the application, holding that the party could lead secondary evidence and that the photocopy could be validated by payment of stamp duty and penalty.

Aggrieved by this order, the opposing party approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court contending that the Trial Court had exceeded its statutory authority.

Statutory Framework Considered

Indian Stamp Act, 1899

• Section 33 – Power to examine and impound instruments
• Section 35 – Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence
• Section 36 – Admission of instrument where not to be questioned

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Section 63 – Definition of secondary evidence
• Section 65 – Circumstances permitting secondary evidence

The Court emphasised that while the Evidence Act governs the mode of proof, the Stamp Act governs admissibility.

Issue for Determination

Whether a Trial Court can validate a photocopy or a partially original document for stamp purposes and permit it to be used as secondary evidence when the original instrument is not available on record.

Findings of the High Court

Original Instrument Must Exist as a Whole

The High Court held that an instrument must exist in its complete and original form for the purposes of the Stamp Act. A document that is partly original and partly photocopied cannot be treated as an original instrument in law.

Composite or Partial Documents Cannot Be Treated as Originals

Rejecting the Trial Court’s approach, the High Court clarified that a document is a single composite legal instrument. If it does not exist wholly in original form, it loses its legal character as an original.

Copies Cannot Be Validated for Stamp Purposes

Stamp duty is levied on execution of the original instrument. The Stamp Act does not contemplate validation or regularisation of photocopies.

Evidence Act Does Not Override Stamp Act

The Court drew a clear distinction between permission to lead secondary evidence and admissibility under the Stamp Act. Even if secondary evidence is otherwise permissible, an unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument cannot be admitted, directly or indirectly.

Trial Court Acted Without Jurisdiction

The High Court held that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to validate a photocopy for stamp purposes and had exercised powers not vested in it by law.

Final Decision

• Revision petition allowed
• Order of the Trial Court set aside
• Validation of photocopy for stamp duty held impermissible

Legal and Practical Significance

• Reaffirms mandatory nature of stamp law
• Clarifies limits on use of secondary evidence
• Provides guidance to trial courts on jurisdictional boundaries