TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, amendment of the complaint could be permitted after cognizance had been taken and whether the proposed correction altered the nature of the complaint or caused prejudice to the accused.
Analysis: The settled position is that a criminal court is not powerless to permit amendment of a complaint where the defect is curable, the amendment is formal or otherwise appropriate in the circumstances, and no prejudice is caused to the accused. The governing consideration is whether the amendment is necessary to correct an infirmity that can be cured without altering the essential character of the proceedings. The written complaint requirement under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, does not exclude all amendments as a matter of principle. The test of prejudice, reflected also in the scheme of alteration of charge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, remains central. On the facts, the amendment related only to the description of the goods supplied, was sought at a stage when the complainant's evidence was incomplete, and did not change the nature of the prosecution. The High Court's focus on GST consequences was extraneous to the issue whether the complaint itself could be corrected.
Conclusion: The amendment was permissible, no prejudice was shown, and the order refusing to sustain the trial court's allowance of amendment could not stand.
Ratio Decidendi: A complaint in a criminal prosecution may be amended to cure a formal or curable defect, even after cognizance, if the amendment does not change the nature of the case and causes no prejudice to the accused.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
