Impleading proposed accused in NI Act complaint requires prior notice and specific role averments; amendment refused.

Amendment of a complaint to implead a company and its directors in a pending Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution was impermissible after process had been issued where prior statutory notice to the proposed accused was not shown and the complaint lacked specific averments that they were in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time. The cited precedent was held inapplicable on different facts, so the request to add the proposed accused was rejected and the challenge to refusal of amendment failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could seek amendment of the complaint to implead the company and its directors as accused in a pending prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act after process had been issued, despite absence of prior statutory notice and specific allegations against the proposed accused.

Analysis: The complaint had originally been filed only against one director, and process had already been issued. The proposed amendment was sought on the footing that the company and other directors had been left out by mistake. The Court held that such impleadment could not be permitted at that stage because the mandatory pre-complaint notice requirement had not been shown to have been complied with in relation to the proposed accused, and no specific averments were made that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offence. Reliance on the cited precedent was found unhelpful on the facts, since that decision concerned a materially different situation.

Conclusion: The request to implead the company and the other directors was not maintainable, and the challenge to the orders refusing such amendment failed.

---