Amendment of cheque dishonour complaint allowed where it only clarifies partners' vicarious liability without changing the prosecution.

A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be formally amended to cure a curable defect in pleadings, including by elaborating averments on vicarious liability of partners, where the firm and partners are already impleaded and the amendment does not alter the core prosecution. The court found that the proposed change only clarified existing allegations about responsibility for conduct of business, and did not introduce a new case. It also held that no real prejudice was shown to the accused, since the essential allegations and available defences remained unchanged. The challenge to the amendment order therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be amended to supply or elaborate averments relating to vicarious liability of the partners of the firm; (ii) Whether the proposed amendment caused prejudice to the accused so as to warrant refusal.

Issue (i): Whether a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be amended to supply or elaborate averments relating to vicarious liability of the partners of the firm.

Analysis: The procedural law under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains no express bar against amendment of a complaint, and a formal amendment may be permitted where it only removes a curable infirmity. In cheque dishonour prosecutions, the complaint must contain the factual ingredients of the offence and, where vicarious liability is invoked, the necessary averments must exist against the persons sought to be prosecuted. On the facts, the firm was already arraigned as principal accused, all partners were already impleaded, notice had been issued to them, and the proposed amendment only elaborated the existing pleadings regarding their responsibility for the conduct of business. It did not alter the core of the prosecution or introduce a new case.

Conclusion: The amendment was permissible and rightly allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether the proposed amendment caused prejudice to the accused so as to warrant refusal.

Analysis: The accused had admitted issuance of the cheque, the participation of partners in signing it, and the surrounding transaction. The amendment was confined to clarifying the basis of liability already reflected in the complaint and did not change the essential allegations or the defence available to the accused. In these circumstances, the amendment was not shown to have caused any real prejudice.

Conclusion: No prejudice to the accused was made out.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order allowing amendment failed, and the criminal application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal complaint, including one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, may be amended to cure a formal or curable defect in pleadings, provided the amendment does not change the basic nature of the prosecution or cause prejudice to the accused.

---