Stamp duty scrutiny after exhibit marking can be revisited where there was no real judicial determination.

A chargeable instrument must be examined for proper stamping when produced, and mere admission in evidence does not by itself cure non-compliance. If the court has already applied its mind and judicially determined the stamping question, section 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act bars reopening in the same proceeding, leaving only the limited remedy under section 58. But where the document was marked as an exhibit without real adjudication on sufficiency of stamp, the bar does not apply and the trial court may invoke its inherent power to correct the inadvertent admission and require deficit duty and penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after an instrument chargeable to duty has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit without a judicial determination on its sufficiency of stamp, the trial court can recall that process in exercise of its inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and require payment of deficit duty and penalty notwithstanding the bar under section 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and the remedy under section 58 thereof.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of sections 33, 34, 35 and 58 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 requires the court, when a chargeable instrument is produced, to examine whether it is duly stamped and to impound it if it is not. Admission in evidence is not a mere mechanical act; it must follow a judicial determination on admissibility. If the court has actually decided the question, section 35 bars reopening the matter in the same proceeding, leaving the limited supervisory remedy under section 58. But where the document is marked and exhibited without application of mind and there is no real adjudication on stamping, the bar under section 35 does not operate. In such a situation, the trial court may correct the inadvertent admission by invoking its inherent power to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The trial court was competent to revisit the marking of the instrument and to direct payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty. The High Court's contrary view was unsustainable.

---