2003 (11) TMI 618 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Amendment of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Dismissal of amendment application by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate - Exercise of inherent powers by the lower court - Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the amendment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Amendment of Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the respondent for dishonoring a cheque. The complainant sought to amend the complaint due to typographical errors in mentioning the cheque number and the date of information by the bank. The respondent opposed the amendment, leading to the dismissal of the application by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Issue 2: Dismissal of Amendment Application by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the amendment application citing the lack of inherent power to rectify such mistakes. The court held that since the lower court does not possess inherent power, the errors in the complaint could not be rectified by the Magistrate, leading to the aggrieved complainant filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Issue 3: Exercise of Inherent Powers by the Lower Court
The High Court analyzed whether the mistakes in the complaint were typographical errors or not. Upon examining the evidence, the Court concluded that the errors were typographical in nature. The Court further discussed the inherent powers of the judiciary, emphasizing that courts possess inherent powers necessary for the administration of justice, even if not explicitly provided in procedural laws.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to Allow the Amendment
The High Court, noting its ample power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., allowed the petition and quashed the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Court highlighted that all criminal courts have auxiliary powers to rectify typographical mistakes to ensure justice between the parties, provided no prejudice or illegality is involved.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and permitted the amendment application to correct the errors in the complaint. The Court emphasized the importance of dispensing justice and rectifying typographical mistakes to uphold fairness in legal proceedings. The case exemplifies the exercise of inherent powers by the judiciary to ensure the proper administration of justice.