2012 (10) TMI 1248 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Amendment of the complaint to correct the name of the accused.
2. Powers of the Magistrate to allow such amendments.
3. Applicability of provisions of Cr.P.C. and N.I. Act in such amendments.
4. Whether the complainant can be blamed for incorrect names due to lack of information.

Summary:

1. Amendment of the Complaint to Correct the Name of the Accused:
The petitioner challenged the judgment allowing the complainant to correct the name of the accused from "Amol Trilokchand Shaha" to "Amol Shripal Seth" in a proceeding u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Sessions Court held that there was no question of identity about the accused and supported the Magistrate's decision based on documents indicating the petitioner was the Managing Director of the accused company.

2. Powers of the Magistrate to Allow Such Amendments:
The Court examined various precedents and held that the Magistrate has incidental and ancillary power to allow amendments in the complaint, even though there is no express provision for such amendments in the Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender, and thus can ascertain the correct identity of the accused during the trial.

3. Applicability of Provisions of Cr.P.C. and N.I. Act in Such Amendments:
The Court discussed the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. including sections 2(d), 190, 202, 204, and 319, and concluded that these provisions do not necessitate the mention of the accused's name in the complaint. The Court also referred to section 141 of the N.I. Act, which holds persons in charge of the company responsible for the offence, and stated that the complainant cannot be blamed for incorrect names if the company fails to provide accurate information.

4. Whether the Complainant Can Be Blamed for Incorrect Names Due to Lack of Information:
The Court held that the complainant, being a stranger to the company, may not have accurate information about the company's management. The statutory notice u/s 138(b) of the N.I. Act requires the company to disclose the responsible persons. If the company fails to provide this information, the complainant cannot be blamed for any defects in the complaint. The Court also noted that the burden of proof lies on the company officials to show they were not responsible for the offence.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed all three applications, stating that the Magistrate's orders and the Sessions Court's decisions were correct. The petitioner's attempts to protract the proceedings were noted, and the Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of such cases as per the legislative intent behind the N.I. Act. The request for a stay was denied.