Court allows amendment to correct cheque number discrepancy despite objection. Amendment not prejudicial.

The High Court allowed the respondent/complainant to amend the complaint to correct a cheque number discrepancy, despite the objection from the petitioner/accused. The court held that the mistake was genuine and based on information provided by the bank. The amendment was permitted as it did not prejudice either party, and all other details in the notice and complaint remained consistent. The court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case, upholding the trial court's decision to allow the amendment based on legal precedent.

---

---

Issues:
1. Amendment application filed by the respondent/complainant regarding cheque number discrepancy.

Analysis:
The respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner/accused for dishonour of a cheque. The cheque in question bore two numbers, 054285 and 024337. The return memorandum issued by the bank mentioned the cheque number as 024337. The respondent/complainant, relying on this information, included the number 024337 in the legal notice, complaint, and proof affidavit. However, during the trial, the Manager of the bank testified that the actual cheque number was 054285, not 024337. The respondent/complainant then sought permission to amend the complaint to reflect the correct number as 054285. The trial court allowed the amendment based on the Supreme Court judgment in S.R. Kumar vs. Sunaad Raghuram (2015) 9 SCC 609.

The petitioner/accused objected to the amendment, arguing that the discrepancy was only revealed during the trial and should not be permitted at that stage. The petitioner contended that the amendment should not be allowed as it was sought after the discrepancy was highlighted during the trial. The petitioner relied on the timing of the amendment and the potential prejudice it could cause. However, the court noted that the respondent/complainant's mistake was genuine and based on the information provided by the bank.

The High Court, after considering the facts and legal precedents, found that the discrepancy in the cheque number was a curable infirmity. Citing the S.R. Kumar case, the court held that allowing the amendment would not prejudice either party. The court emphasized that the respondent/complainant did not introduce a completely different number and that all other details in the notice and complaint were consistent. The court dismissed the Criminal Revision Case, stating that there was no error in the trial court's decision to allow the amendment. The petitioner's attempt to capitalize on a genuine mistake was deemed unjustified, and the court upheld the trial court's order permitting the amendment.

---