Impleading the company in Section 138 complaints cannot be treated as a mere formal amendment where prior non-impleadment was decisive.

Amendment of Section 138 complaints to implead a company as an additional accused was refused where the complaints had originally been filed without the company and the same non-impleadment issue had already led to quashing qua the concerned accused. The Gujarat HC held that the authorities cited by the petitioners involved different situations, including curable formal amendments, defective notice, or summoning of a company already arrayed as an accused. On these facts, the proposed amendment was not a mere formal correction and could not be allowed. The petitions were dismissed at the admission stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners could be permitted to amend the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 so as to implead the company as an additional accused, notwithstanding its earlier non-impleadment and the existing orders rejecting such request.

Analysis: The complaints had originally been filed without impleading the company, though Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 contemplates prosecution of the company in such cases. The same non-impleadment issue had already been considered in earlier proceedings and the complaints had been quashed qua the concerned accused on that ground. The Court found that the authorities relied upon by the petitioners did not assist them, because they dealt with different factual situations, such as curable formal amendments, defective notice, or summoning of a company already arrayed as an accused. On the facts before it, the proposed amendment was not a mere formal correction and could not be permitted.

Conclusion: The request to amend the complaints and implead the company as an additional accused was rejected, and the petitions were dismissed at the admission stage.

---