Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an amendment to a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act could be allowed to introduce a new plea that the fourth accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, so as to fasten liability under Section 141.
Analysis: The complaint as originally filed contained no specific averment satisfying the requirement of Section 141 that the fourth accused was in charge of and responsible to the company for its business. The proposed amendment was not a mere correction of a clerical or patent mistake, but an attempt to introduce a new foundational plea to sustain criminal liability. Such an amendment would materially alter the nature and character of the accusation and would prejudice the defence of the fourth accused. The absence of the necessary pleading in the original complaint could not be cured by amendment at that stage.
Conclusion: The amendment was not permissible and the complaint could not be altered to add the missing averment against the fourth accused.
Ratio Decidendi: An amendment in a criminal complaint cannot be permitted when it introduces a new plea that goes to the root of vicarious liability and causes substantial prejudice by materially changing the complaint's nature and character.