2020 (11) TMI 430

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which has arisen out of the private complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I.Act', for brevity), against the present respondent (accused in the trial Court). 2. During the pendency of the case, the complainant filed an application seeking permission to amend his complaint in the form of removal of the word "on the dated first week of December 2018" from the complaint. The same was opposed by the accused by his objections stating that the application is liable to be dismissed in view of the rule of estoppel. The trial Court after hearing both side rejected the application. Chal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder Section 138 of the N.I. Act, as such, deletion of the alleged period of transaction cannot be permitted. 6. The said reasoning given by the trial Court is not a convincing reason in my view for the reason that, it is not mandatory that the alleged date of transaction must necessarily be given by the complainant in the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to maintain the petition. It is for the complainant to decide whether giving the date of transaction or the period of transaction is necessary. If to prove the alleged transaction, date or the period is necessary, then it is required. If he fails to furnish such particulars, then it amounts to complainant himself leaving it vacant. Thus, it is for the complainant to decide ....