SUNDERDEV Vs. YOGESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner Sunderdev, being aggrieved by order dated 16.3.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Indore, in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2007, although the revision has been filed against the order of remand by the Sessions Judge remanding the matter to the Trial Court by allowing the amendment application of the respondent Yogesh, the error is apparent on the face of the record that Counsel for the petitioner urged that first of all amendments are not as a rule permitted under the criminal law since there is no provision for such under the Criminal Procedure Code. Secondly, the Counsel urged that such amendments which change the entire complaint and give rise to new cause of action are not to be permitted even in Civil law. In the instant matter the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Yogesh had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of the IPC stating that the petitioner Sunderdev had issued the cheque No. 011568 which has not been honoured. However, on filing of the complaint the complainant realised that by mistake the number had been typed as 011568, whereas it should have been 011964 and had filed an application for amending the typographical error. The Trial Court had refused the permission and the case was filed before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge, on considering the submissions and placing his reliance on Bhim Singh v. Kan Singh, =2004 Volume (2) DCR 158, whereby under such situation the amendments have been allowed and directed that even if the affidavit the notice and the said statements, the other correct number should be allowed to be amended, remanded the matter to the Trial Court for the fresh decision on merits.

(2.) IN my humble opinion the learned Sessions Judge of the Trial Court had erred in drawing conclusion that such an amendment can be permitted under the provisions of law. Even in the case of Bhim Singh v. Kan Singh (supra) is considered it is found that the miscellaneous petition was filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and under the inherent powers the learned Judge has quashed the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the amendment application was allowed.

(3.) MOREOVER , in the instant case, Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the mistake of the cheque number was not merely in the complaint alone the same mistake has occurred in the notices sent by the respondent as well as observed by the Trial Court in the affidavit and even in the cross-examination of Rohit Neema, the father of the respondent, the cheque number has been wrongly mentioned then to allow the amendment at this stage would be fallacy.