TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in permitting amendment of the complaint in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 after evidence had commenced, and whether the proposed amendment could be treated as a permissible formal correction without causing prejudice to the accused.
Analysis: The governing principle is that a criminal court may permit an amendment where the defect is merely typographical, clerical, or otherwise curable by a formal amendment, and where no prejudice is caused to the opposite party. Even in cases of substantial amendment, interference may be unwarranted if cognizance has not yet been taken and the nature of the complaint is not altered. On the facts, the complaint had already progressed to the stage where cognizance had been taken long earlier and evidence of the power of attorney holder had been recorded. The proposed amendment was not a mere formal correction but sought to introduce a material factual foundation regarding the power of attorney holder's knowledge of the transaction, which would affect the accused's available defence and cause prejudice.
Conclusion: The amendment was impermissible, and the order allowing it was liable to be set aside. The accused succeeded.
TaxTMI 
