Cr.Revision No.759 of 2010 8.12.2011 Shri Asif Warsi, counsel for applicant. Heard on the question of admission. The complainant has come-up in revision against the order dated 31.3.2010 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract) Jawara, District Ratlam. A private complaint has been filed against the respondent for taking action against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. During course of cross-examination of the complainant, the respondent sought leave to exhibit receipt dated 6.3.2007. The admissibility of the document was questioned and it was sustained by the trial Court only on the ground that it was not sufficiently stamped in accordance with the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, as applicable to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The order passed by the trial Court on 5.1.2010 was challenged by the respondent before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, who set- aside the order of trial Court and allowed the respondent to tender the said receipt in evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length. Perused the impugned order. Learned Lower Appellate Court has referred to provisions contained in Section 35(d) of the Stamp Act. The proviso contained in Clause (d) of Section 35 carves-out an exception for the admissibility of document in criminal proceedings. Merely because the receipt did not bear the requisite stamp duty that alone was not sufficient to reject the application as was done by the trial Court. In the present case, what would be the effect of the said receipt, would depend upon the evidence adduced by the parties. At this stage, it cannot be said that the receipt was wholly irrelevant. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or procedural irregularity, therefore, no case is made out to warrant interference with the order impugned. We find no merit and substance in the revision and the same stands dismissed. [S.K.SETH] JUDGE BDJ