Presently, an application has been filed seeking
amendment of the date of the cheque from 22.07.2010 to
22.07.2012 as also changing the date in the evidence
recorded by the complainant to the same effect. It is in
that light, at the first instance, the learned Magistrate
considering the application has rightly concluded that
even if the amendment/ correction is permitted in the
complaint to indicate the date as 22.07.2012, the
evidence supporting the case of the appellant contains
the year as 2010, and as such, the amendment/ correction
would not be justified. {Para 6}
9. In a matter of the present nature, where the date
is a relevant aspect based on which the entire aspect
relating to the issue of notice within the time frame as
provided under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and
also as to whether as on the date there was sufficient
balance in the account of the issuer of the cheque would
be the question, the amendment, as sought for, in the
present circumstance, was not justified.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. OF 2024
MUNISH KUMAR GUPTA Vs M/S MITTAL TRADING COMPANY.
Dated: 30th April, 2024.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
perused the appeal papers.
3. The respondent, though served, has not chosen to
appear and have his say in the instant proceedings.
4. From a perusal of the record, it is noted that the
respondent had initiated a complaint under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the complaint, it
has been alleged that the appellant, to discharge its
financial liability, had issued an account payee cheque
dated 22.07.2010 bearing No.732966. The complaint had
been filed on 02.01.2013. The matter has thus proceeded
before the learned Magistrate. Subsequently, the
respondent had tendered evidence before the learned Trial
Court. At that stage, claiming that inadvertently a
typographical error had arisen with regard to mentioning
the year of the cheque, the respondent had filed an
application seeking amendment of the said complaint. The
application for amendment was filed as late as on
24.10.2017. The learned Magistrate, having taken note of
the said application for amendment, has through her Order
dated 13.07.2018, arrived at the conclusion that the
amendment, as sought for, would not be justified inasmuch
as the said date, which is now sought to be corrected,
has already been recorded in the evidence during crossexamination
and also the relevant documents contain the
same. The respondent, claiming to be aggrieved by the
said order dated 13.07.2018, went before the High Court
assailing the same. The High Court, through its judgment
and order dated 04.01.2023, has allowed the said
application and permitted the respondent to carry out the
amendment. It is in that circumstance, the accused in the
said case is before us assailing the judgment/ order of
the High Court.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant,
a perusal of the documents before us would indicate that
from the very stage of issue of notice demanding
payment, the date of the cheque had been indicated as
22.07.2010. Subsequent thereto, in the complaint as also
while tendering the evidence, the date was recorded as
22.07.2010.
6. Presently, an application has been filed seeking
amendment of the date of the cheque from 22.07.2010 to
22.07.2012 as also changing the date in the evidence
recorded by the complainant to the same effect. It is in
that light, at the first instance, the learned Magistrate
considering the application has rightly concluded that
even if the amendment/ correction is permitted in the
complaint to indicate the date as 22.07.2012, the
evidence supporting the case of the appellant contains
the year as 2010, and as such, the amendment/ correction
would not be justified.
7. As against such conclusion reached by the learned
Magistrate, the High Court based on the discussion and
applying the principles laid down in the various
judgments cited therein by the learned counsel, allowed
the said application to carry out necessary corrections/
amendment. However, while ultimately arriving at the
conclusion as to whether the amendment is required to be
permitted, the High Court had merely arrived at the
conclusion that if such amendment is not permitted, it
would prove fatal to the case of the complainant and as
indicated, the respondent/complainant was only seeking
the correction of the year. The High Court has, in fact,
lost sight of the fact that the documents also contain
the said date and the evidence recorded is also to the
same effect.
8. Therefore, the opinion reached by the High Court
to arrive at the conclusion that the mistake could be
committed while taking copies from the computer would not
be justified in the facts of the present case where the
legal notice had indicated the date, and based on the
same, the complaint had been initiated.
9. In a matter of the present nature, where the date
is a relevant aspect based on which the entire aspect
relating to the issue of notice within the time frame as
provided under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and
also as to whether as on the date there was sufficient
balance in the account of the issuer of the cheque would
be the question, the amendment, as sought for, in the
present circumstance, was not justified.
10. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated
04.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at Chandigarh is set aside.
11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
...................J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
...................J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
New Delhi
30th April, 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment