RAMDEOBABA DEVELOPERS Vs. SYED MAZARUDDIN SYED SHABUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal application, filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenge is to the order dtd. 20/4/2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Darwha, whereby learned Magistrate allowed the application (Exh.75) in Cri. Complaint Case No. 1272 of 2007, made by the complainants seeking amendment to the complaint filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.I. Act" for short).

(2.) The facts relevant for the decision of this application may be stated thus : The applicants are the accused and the non-applicants are the complainants. They would be referred by their nomenclature in the complaint. The original complainant was Syed Mazaruddin. He died on 19/8/2008 during pendency of the complaint. His heirs, the present complainant nos.1 to 4, are allowed to prosecute the complaint. The deceased complainant had agreed to sell his land to accused nos. 1 to 4. The accused issued a cheque bearing No.493369 dtd. 30/6/2006 for Rs.10,00,000.00, drawn on the account of the firm maintained with the Buldhana Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch Wardha. The deceased complainant presented the cheque for encashment through his bank namely Central Bank of India, Darwha. The bank informed the deceased complainant that the cheque was dishonoured on the ground that "the drawer had stopped the payment". The deceased complainant issued notice dtd. 30/8/2007 to the accused. It is stated that despite receipt of the notice, the accused did not pay the amount. Therefore, the deceased complainant filed the complaint.

(3.) Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused persons. The complaint was fixed for recording of the evidence. The complainants at that time made an application at Exh.75 for amendment. The proposed amendment was set out in paragraph 2 of the application. The sum and substance of the amendment application was that the relevant facts with regard to the vicarious liability of accused nos. 1 to 4 remained to be pleaded due to oversight. It was also stated in the said application that accused nos.1 to