Typographical errors in a cheque dishonour complaint may be corrected by the trial court when the record shows the true particulars.

Typographical mistakes in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, including an incorrect cheque number and wrong date of bank intimation, may be corrected when the record already shows the accurate particulars and no prejudice is caused. The Rajasthan HC stated that, although the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC vests in the High Court, subordinate criminal courts are not powerless to permit obvious clerical corrections where no legal prohibition exists and the amendment is needed to advance justice. The trial court should therefore allow rectification of such errors when they do not affect the substance of the prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be corrected for typographical mistakes in the cheque number and the date of bank intimation, and whether the trial court had power to permit such rectification.

Analysis: The complaint contained an incorrect cheque number and an incorrect date of bank intimation, while the cheque and bank letter on record showed the correct particulars. The mistakes were held to be typographical in nature and not matters affecting the substance of the prosecution. The Court further held that, although the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vests in the High Court, subordinate criminal courts are not powerless to correct obvious typographical mistakes when no prohibition exists and the correction is necessary to advance justice without causing prejudice.

Conclusion: The typographical errors were capable of rectification, and the trial court ought to have allowed the amendment.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal courts may permit correction of obvious typographical mistakes in pleadings or complaints where the correction is necessary for the ends of justice and is not prohibited by law.

---