AZIZODDIN Vs. PANDIT DINDAYAL NAGARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) IN this matter, Respondent (complainant) has filed complaint bearing STCC No. 180 of 2008 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shahada, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint has been filed against present Petitioner accused. When the complaint was filed, the name of the accused was shown as "Shri Shah Aminoddin Rafiyoddin". Subsequently the complainant filed application Exhibit 18 for correction in the name of the accused, as complainant realized that correct name of accused is "Shah Ajijoddin Rafiyoddin". The Respondent, (complainant therein) claimed that by oversight the error in the name has taken place 3 and thus the correction was sought. The accused was called upon to give his say but instead of giving say, he filed discharge application on the same ground. The trial Court after hearing both sides, observed that it is quasi civil proceedings and allowed the application for correction of the name of the accused and rejected application for discharge.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for both sides. The learned counsel for the Petitioner accused, is submitting that in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 there is no power given to the Judicial Magistrate First Class to allow 4 amendment in the complaint and thus the amendment carried out is without the procedure. The Magistrate did not have any inherent powers to permit such rectification, although the High Court could do it under inherent powers to do justice.