law: Indian Stamp Act, 1899 
  35. Instruments not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence,
  
  etc. 
  No instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence
  
  for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to
  
  receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any
  
  such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped:
  PROVIDED that-
  (a) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable 33[with
  
  a duty not exceeding ten naye paise] only, or a bill of exchange or promissory
  
  note, shall, subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment
  
  of the duty with which the same is chargeable or, in the case of an instrument
  
  insufficiently stamped, of the amount required to make up such duty, together
  
  with a penalty of five rupees, or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty
  
  or deficient portion thereof exceeds five rupees, of a sum equal to ten times
  
  such duty or portion;
  (b) where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been
  
  demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped, would be
  
  admissible in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in
  
  evidence against him on payment of a penalty of one rupee by the person
  
  tendering it;
  (c) where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by
  
  correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters
  
  bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly
  
  stamped;
  (d) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any
  
  instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a Criminal Court, other than a
  
  proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal
  
  Procedure, 1898;
  (e) nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any
  
  instrument in any court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf
  
  of the government or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as
  
  provided by section 32 or any other provision of this Act
  Comment: It is not disputed that the actual value
  
  of the stamp used covers more than the stamp duty and penalty required for the
  
  document and, therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the award is
  
  admissible in evidence and cannot be rejected on the ground that the proper
  
  duty and penalty has not been paid. Mattapalli Chelamayya v. Mattapalli
  
  Venkataratnam, AIR 1972 SUPREME COURT 1121