support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited versus Mrs. Shashi Kapoor and others, 2009-4 PLR 288 and judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Dhan Prakash Gupta versus Jai Narain Goel, 1997-1 PLR (Delhi Section) 14. According to ratio of law laid down in these judgments, document not properly stamped cannot be used even for collateral purposes. There is no dispute with the legal proposition. In the instant case, however, the disputed entry cannot be said to be acknowledgment of debt. On the other hand, it is the plaintiff's case that there was current running account of the defendant in account books of the plaintiff. Even the defendant in the witness box admitted that he had been selling his produce at the shop of the plaintiff and also had been taking advances from the plaintiff. On 16.05.2003, the defendant after settling the account confirmed the balance entry of Rs.46,500/-. The said entry cannot be said to be an acknowledgment of debt for the purpose of stamp duty within the meaning of 'acknowledgment' mentioned in Article 1 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act. However, even assuming it to be 'acknowledgment' for the said purpose, the said document could be impounded and could be admitted in evidence on payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty. However, Courts below did not find it to be acknowledgment and, therefore, it was not impounded. On the other hand, the said document could be admitted in evidence even if deemed to be acknowledgment, on payment of stamp duty and penalty. The plaintiff, therefore, cannot be non-suited on the basis of
