LINDA JOHN ABRAHAM Vs. BUSINESS INDIA GROUP COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in CC.692/09 renumbered as CC. 52/2010 which is now pending before JFCM - III, Mavelikkara, is the petitioner. The complaint was filed against four persons namely; against the company, its Chairman, Managing Director and another Director. The complainant filed a petition for amendment to introduce a plea to the effect that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were/are persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. That plea was not raised in the original complaint filed by him. The second and third accused are the Chairman and Managing Director. The cheques were signed by those persons. Hence there would be no difficulty to sustain the prosecution, provided the case is otherwise acceptable.

(2.) So far as the 4th accused is concerned, it was not specifically 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 the learned counsel for the petitioner though the words employed in Section 141 of the N.I. Act 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, the learned counsel submits. It was found by the learned Magistrate that there is no enabling provision in the Code permitting the party to amend the pleadings unlike in Civil Procedure Code. 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.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would submit that though there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling the amendment of the complaint, the Court has inherent power to rectify the mistakes. The learned counsel has relied upon certain decisions which are referred to here. In the decision in Madhavi v. Thupran, 1987 1 KerLT 488it was held :