Clerical errors in criminal complaints may be corrected, but proof affidavits cannot be amended as evidence already tendered.
A criminal complaint may be formally amended to correct an obvious clerical or typographical error where the correction does not introduce a new case, alter the nature of the complaint, or cause serious prejudice to the accused; on that basis, the complaint could be rectified to reflect the correct signatory. By contrast, a proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination is part of the evidence already tendered and cannot be amended as such, although the complainant may be permitted to lead further evidence to explain the mistake, subject to trial court control over admissibility and relevance.
Issues: (i) Whether the averment in paragraph 6 of the complaint, stating that the cheque was issued by the second accused, could be corrected as a clerical or typographical mistake; (ii) Whether the complainant could be permitted to amend the proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination.
Issue (i): Whether the averment in paragraph 6 of the complaint, stating that the cheque was issued by the second accused, could be corrected as a clerical or typographical mistake.
Analysis: The cheque produced with the complaint showed that it was signed by the fourth accused for and on behalf of the company, and not by the second accused. The incorrect reference in the complaint was therefore an apparent clerical or typographical mistake, and the proposed correction did not amount to introducing a new case or a fresh plea of vicarious liability. A formal amendment of a curable defect is permissible where it causes no serious prejudice to the accused and does not alter the nature of the complaint.
Conclusion: The correction of paragraph 6 of the complaint was permissible and ought to be allowed.
Issue (ii): Whether the complainant could be permitted to amend the proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination.
Analysis: The proof affidavit constituted evidence already tendered by the complainant, and correction of the evidence itself was not permissible. At the same time, the complainant could be allowed to adduce further evidence to explain how the mistake occurred, leaving admissibility and relevance to the trial court.
Conclusion: Amendment of the proof affidavit was not permissible, though liberty to lead further evidence was left open.
Final Conclusion: The refusal to correct the complaint was set aside, the complaint was directed to be amended to reflect the correct signatory, and the challenge to correction of the proof affidavit failed, with liberty reserved to adduce further evidence on that aspect.
Ratio Decidendi: A criminal complaint may be formally amended to correct an obvious clerical or typographical mistake if the amendment merely cures an infirmity, does not change the nature of the complaint, and causes no serious prejudice to the accused.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
