2013 (7) TMI 1182 - HC - Indian Laws

Amendment to Correct Typo in Cheque Number Deemed Illegal under Section 138

Lekhraj Singh Kushwah Versus Brahmanand Tiwari

The Court held that the amendment in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, allowing correction of a typographical error in ... - Issues Involved: The issue involves the permissibility of amending a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the legality of the order passed by the trial Court allowing the amendment.Summary:Issue 1: Permissibility of Amendment in Complaint The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order affirming the amendment in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent alleged that the petitioner borrowed money and issued a cheque which was dishonored. The trial Court allowed an amendment to correct a typographical error in the cheque number. The petitioner contended that such an amendment is illegal and prayed for setting aside the order.Details: The petitioner argued that the amendment was against the provisions of law as there was inconsistency in the cheque number mentioned by the respondent in the complaint and notice. The trial Court's decision to allow the amendment was challenged on the grounds that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. for amending a statement already given.Issue 2: Legal Precedents and Interpretation The Court considered legal precedents and interpretations regarding the permissibility of amending complaints under Section 138 of the Act. Reference was made to previous cases where it was held that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure allowing parties to file applications for amendment in pleadings. The Court also highlighted the importance of strict compliance in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Details: The petitioner cited cases where it was established that amendments in complaints cannot be allowed, emphasizing the mandatory compliance required in cases under Section 138 of the Act. However, the respondent argued that typographical errors can be amended and supported the trial Court's decision.Judgment: The Court analyzed the legal precedents and observed that while there is no provision for amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure, previous decisions have allowed corrections in certain circumstances. Ultimately, the Court held that the amendment in the complaint, due to a typographical error in the cheque number, was illegal. The orders passed by the lower Courts allowing the amendment were quashed, and the petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner.