Brief Facts
- The Respondent/Complainant had initiated a complaint dated 02.01.2013 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against appellant for dishonour of cheque dated 22.07.2010.
- Subsequently, the Respondent had tendered evidence before the learned Trial Court. At that stage, claiming that inadvertently a typographical error had arisen with regard to mentioning the year of the cheque, the Respondent had filed an application seeking amendment of the said complaint. The application for amendment was filed as late as on 24.10.2017.
- The learned Magistrate rejected the amendment on the grounds that the date had been consistently recorded as 22.07.2010 in both the complaint and the evidence.
- However, the High Court allowed the application filed by the Respondent and permitted him to carry out the amendment.
- Hence, the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court by the accused assailing the judgment/order of the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the amendment of the cheque date at such a later stage when the original date was consistently mentioned in all documents and evidence?
Held
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and the High Court’s order permitting the amendment was set aside. The findings of the Court are as under:
- As against such conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate, the High Court based on the discussion and applying the principles laid down in the various judgments cited therein by the learned counsel, allowed the said application to carry out necessary corrections/ amendment. However, while ultimately arriving at the conclusion as to whether the amendment is required to be permitted, the High Court had merely arrived at the conclusion that if such amendment is not permitted, it would prove fatal to the case of the complainant and as indicated, the respondent/complainant was only seeking the correction of the year. The High Court has, in fact, lost sight of the fact that the documents also contain the said date and the evidence recorded is also to the same effect.
- In a matter of the present nature, where the date is a relevant aspect based on which the entire aspect relating to the issue of notice within the time frame as provided under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and also as to whether as on the date there was sufficient balance in the account of the issuer of the cheque would be the question, the amendment, as sought for, in the present circumstance, was not justified. 10. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is set aside.
Relevant Para No.
- 7, 9, 10