TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stated in the complaint that at the time the offence was committed he was in charge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. According to learned counsel for the petitioner though the words employed in section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are not specifically mentioned in the complaint, on going through the complaint in entirety, the role of the fourth accused can also be discerned but it is only to introduce the specific words as employed in section 141 the amendment petition was filed. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application on a wrong understanding of the amendment sought to be introduced, learned counsel submits. It was found by the learned Magistrate that there is no enabling provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, permitting the party to amend the pleadings unlike in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was also observed by the learned Magistrate that in the complaint originally filed there is no allegation against accused No. 4 and from the documents produced, it can only be found that the chairman and managing director alone had signed the two cheques produced in the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In that case, the wife filed a petition to amend the petition stating that out of the 28 grams of gold promised as mahar only, 14 grams were received and the averment in the petition that the entire mahar promised was paid was a bona fide mistake. That amendment was allowed by the Magistrate. The facts dealt with therein are also not identical to the facts of this case. The amendment was allowed in that case by the trial court. The proceedings therein was held to be quasi criminal or quasi civil and hence this court declined to invoke jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. It was held therein that there was no abuse of the process of the court so as to invoke the power under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Even though the amendment introduced therein was not a mere clerical error, still that decision has to be distinguished on facts, because in that case no criminal liability was sought to be fastened by the amendment. It was affecting only a civil liability ; a liability to pay the amount. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the aforesaid decision also has no application to the facts of this case. 6. The decision of the Karnataka High Court in K. Chan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Raosaheb Kamble [2010] 4 KLT 331 was a case dealt under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Learned counsel submits that it was held in that case that the proceedings under that Act are of quasi civil in nature and in such proceedings the court would have power to allow amendment of the application and the written statement. The decision of the Karnataka High Court in V. Satyanarayana v. Sandeep Enterprises [2005] Crl. LJ 12 has also been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was held that a complaint filed alleging offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act is akin to the First Information Report registered under section 154 of the Cr. P.C. but the complaint filed under the N.I. Act can be used for corroborating and contradicting the complainant. There it was held that a complaint presented under section 200 of the Cr. P.C. alleging offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act is akin to plaint or pleadings in civil proceedings since the proceeding under the N.I. Act are practically admixture of civil and criminal in nature. But that decision, also according to learned counsel for the respondents, has no bearing on the facts of this case. Relyin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....introduced." 11. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the facts are not identical, the ratio decided in that case that a defect which goes to the root of the matter cannot be allowed to be amended is applicable here. 12. It was held by the apex court in Pepsico India Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. Food Inspector [2011] 161 Comp. Cas. 197 as follows (page 213 of 161 Comp Cas) : "It is now well established that in a complaint against a company and its directors, the complainant has to indicate in the complaint itself as to whether the directors concerned were either in charge of or responsible to the company for its day to day management, or whether they were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. A mere bald statement that a person was a director of the company against which certain allegations had been made is not sufficient to make such director liable in the absence of any specific allegations regarding his role in the management of the company." 13. Learned counsel for the fourth accused would submit that here also there is only a bald statement that respondent No. 4 is the director of the company. Though learned counsel for the petitioner woul....