https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338477 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Andhra Pradesh High Court treated the Stamp Act objection as insufficient to defeat the criminal trial. It held that Section 33(2) proviso (a) and Section 35(d) of the Indian Stamp Act create an exception in criminal proceedings, other than proceedings under Chapters IX and X of the CrPC, and that the Magistrate's power to examine or impound an instrument is discretionary, not mandatory. As the trial court and revisional court had exercised that discretion judiciously in declining to impound the memorandum of understanding, no interference was warranted under Section 482 CrPC. en-us Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Feb 2017 08:29:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338477 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Andhra Pradesh High Court treated the Stamp Act objection as insufficient to defeat the criminal trial. It held that Section 33(2) proviso (a) and Section 35(d) of the Indian Stamp Act create an exception in criminal proceedings, other than proceedings under Chapters IX and X of the CrPC, and that the Magistrate's power to examine or impound an instrument is discretionary, not mandatory. As the trial court and revisional court had exercised that discretion judiciously in declining to impound the memorandum of understanding, no interference was warranted under Section 482 CrPC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338477