BAPUJI MURUGESAN Vs. MYTHILI RAJAGOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein is the complainant and the respondent herein is the accused in C.C.No.1046 of 2005, on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. THE petitioner herein filed a private complaint against the respondent herein for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Pending trial, after cross examination of P.W.1 complainant, the petitioner herein filed a petition to amend the cause title by inserting M/s. Hex Trading-HUF, represented by Karta above the name mentioned as Babuji Murugesan. THE said petition was allowed by the learned Magistrate. Against the said order, the respondent herein filed a revision before the Sessions Court in Crl.R.C.No,52 of 2008 and the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and allowed the revision. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner herein has preferred this criminal revision petition before this Court.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner herein, though the complaint was filed in the name of Bapuji Murugesan, actually the complaint was filed by the said Bapuji Murugesan only as Karta of Hindu undivided family running the business of Hex Trading. The loan was given to the accused and towards return of the said loan, the cheques were issued by the accused favouring M/s. Hex Trading. In the cross examination, it was suggested by the accused that a wrong person has filed the complaint. Then, in the said circumstance, it had become necessary for the complainant to carryout the amendment of the cause title.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge reversed the order on the ground that the cheques were issued only in favour of 'M/s. Hex Trading' and only after the proceedings of the trial in part and after cross examination of the witness, the amendment petition was filed belatedly and in the Criminal Procedure Code, there is no specific provision to amend the pleadings of the complaint and the amendment petition should not have been allowed to fill up the lacuna.