Brief Facts
- The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act regarding the dishonour of three cheques totaling `14 lakhs. After the complainant’s chief-examination, the appellant sought to amend the complaint to correct a typographical error, changing the description of supplied goods from “Desi Ghee (milk products)” to “milk.” The Trial Court allowed the amendment, but the High Court of Punjab & Haryana set it aside, holding that amendments are not permissible after cognizance and that the change was an attempt to avoid GST liability. The appellant subsequently challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether amendment to the complaint under section 138 of the NI Act was permissible after cognizance is taken?
Held
- Order of High Court was quashed and the amendment to the Complaint was allowed. The observations of the Court are as under:
- It will be appropriate to observe that amendments/alterations are not alien to the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the power of Court to alter any charge and the concept of prejudice to the accused. No doubt when a charge is altered, what is altered is the legal provision and its application to a certain set of facts. The facts per se may not be altered. However, the section does throw some light in considering the issue of amendments.
- The test of ‘prejudice to the accused’ is the cardinal factor that needs to be borne in mind.
- On the facts of the present case and considering the stage of the trial, we find that absolutely no prejudice would be caused to the accused/ respondents. The actual facts will have to be thrashed out at the trial. As to what impact the amendment will have on the existence of debt or other liability is for the Trial Court to decide based on the evidence. It was a curable irregularity which the Trial Court rightly addressed by allowing the amendment.
Relevant Para No.
- 15, 18