K. VELMURUGAN Vs. N. GANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the complainant in S.T.C. No. 1432 of 2008, which is a private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam. Pending the trial, he filed a Crl. M.P. No. 12542 of 2009 praying the Court to permit him to amend the cheque Number in the complaint from 450151 to 005055. The respondent has filed a cross-objection stating that it is not lawful for the complainant to amend his complaint and in case of amending the cheque number, nature of the case will turn hostile and therefore, he prayed that the petition may be dismissed.

(2.) After hearing both the parties, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition by observing that the typed sworn statement recorded by his predecessor, the number of the cheque stands corrected, that in the cheque, Advocate notice and proof affidavit in the chief-examination have been amended with reference to the cheque number, for which the sanction of the Court was not accorded, that the correction was attested by the Judicial Magistrate and hence, the petition could not be allowed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the mistakes entered into the records by inadvertence, the Court must be magnonimous to condone it, permitting the amendment and for this purpose, the learned counsel for the petitioner rely upon the decision Valsamma v. Satheesh Kumar, 2001 2 RCR(Cri) 49 wherein it is observed as follows :- (Para 4 of Cri.L.J.)