JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code for convenience) provides that save as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, no party has any right to be heard either personally or by pleader before any Court exercising its powers of revision; but, the Court may, if it thinks fit, when exercising such powers, hear any party either personally or by pleader.

2. On 27-6-2003 when this mater came up for hearing Shri Patil appearing for Shri Kadam prayed for adjournment by submitting that Shri S.P. Kadam, Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 was unable to attend the Court on account of the sad demise of the father of Senior of Shri K.P. Kadam. Shri Siddiqui appearing for the petitioner did not take any objection for the adjournment sought keeping in view the emotional aspect behind the prayer. This Court also adjourned the hearing keeping in view the emotional aspect behind the prayer so made. Shri Patil remained away when this petition was to be heard on 4-7-2003 peremptorily. Shri Patil submitted today that Shri Kadam is before some other Court and again sought the adjournment. After perusing the challenge put to the order passed by the trial Court and the prayer made for correcting the error committed by the Revisional Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai), this Court does not find any necessity of hearing respondent No. 2 or adjourning the hearing for allowing Mr. Kadam to make the submissions. Already sufficient opportunity was granted but even then none is present for making the submissions on behalf of respondent No. 2.

3. The petitioner makes a prayer to this Court for issuing the writ of certiorari for correcting the error in the proceeding proceeded by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai in permitting the respondent No. 2 to amend the criminal complaint filed by her against the present petitioner by inserting his name in place of Shri B.S. Dastoor and that too after about four years. Shri Siddiqui submitted that the said complaint was revolving around the provisions of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as the Negotiable Instruments Act for convenience). Shri Siddiqui pointed out that in the said complaint of which the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has taken the cognizance was of the allegation that one B.S. Dastoor had issued a cheque for Rs. 22,58,077/- in the name of the company R.E.P.L. Engineering Ltd. He submitted that a non-bailable warrant was issued against the present petitioner Behram S. Doctor and by seeing such non-bailable warrant he was surprised and, therefore, he filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai which was numbered as Revision Application No. 225 of 2002.

4. Shri Siddiqui submitted that when the said revision application was argued, the learned Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the said non-bailable warrant. However, the said complaint is still pending in the said Court.

5. He submitted that the said non-bailable warrant came to be issued against the present petitioner because in the meanwhile the original complainant-respondent No. 2 had amended her complaint and inserted the name of Behram Doctor instead of Shri B.S. Dastoor. He submitted that the said name has been inserted by amending the complaint and that too after about four years. Shri Siddiqui submitted that when the said complaint was filed, the period of limitation for filing the complaint after issuing the notice was at the most 30 days even taking a liberal view in favour of the complainant. He submitted that permitting a complainant to change the name of the accused is by itself not permissible by law and it cannot be done after about four years gap.

6. Shri Sringarpure, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Maharashtra, submitted that the amendment cannot be permitted to be done in criminal complaint by a crimina

Click Here to Read the rest of this document