1. All the three applications are filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner from the three proceedings is the same and the same point is involved in the three proceedings and so they are being decided together.

2. The proceeding bearing Criminal Application No. 1346/2005 is filed against the judgment and order of Criminal Revision No. 335/2004, which was pending in the Sessions Court, Jalgaon. This revision was filed against the order made in R.C.C. No. 315/2003 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as "Magistrate" for short) on Exh. 12. The C.J.M. allowed the complainant from the proceeding filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to correct the name of the accused/present petitioner from "Amol Trilokchand Shaha" to "Amol Shripal Seth". The Magistrate had already issued process against the accused when the amendment was allowed.

3. The complainant has contended that the present petitioner was Chairman of the partnership firm, accused No. 1. It is contended that accused No. 3 was working as a Director and accused No. 4 was the Officer authorized by accused No. 1 concern, to sign the cheques. It is the case of the complainant that the accused Nos. 2 to 4 are responsible for conducting the business of accused No. 1 concern as they were doing acts like purchasing goods, preparing bills and making payments in respect of the goods purchased for accused No. 1. The complainant had issued a statutory notice in this case after receiving the bank note in respect of dishonour of cheque, but the reply was not given in R.C.C. No. 315/2003. It is contended that the notice was received on 14.2.2003.

4. In the statutory notice, the complainant had given the name of present petitioner as "Amol Trilokchand Shaha". The Revisional Court has held that the complainant probably did not know the correct name of this accused, but there cannot be any question of identity about this accused. The Sessions Court has held that on the basis of document like Exh. 18, produced before the Magistrarte, it can be inferred that the present petitioner was working as Managing Director of accused No. 1 company. This document was purportedly signed by the present petitioner. The Sessions Court has held that the petitioner is the same person, who was named as accused No. 2 in the complaint and so interference in the order made by Magistrate is not possible. In the present proceeding a copy of letter signed by Company Secretary came to be produced for petitioner to show that the petitioner was never working as Chairman of accused No. 1 concern.

5. The advocate of the complainant has placed reliance on three reported cases which are as under:-

(i) 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 334 Bombay High Court [Shri. Waman Laxman Sawant Vs. Shri. Ashok Anand Sawant & Anr.,

(ii) 2005 Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 1699 [Maan Agro Centre Vs. E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited & Anr., and

(iii) AIR 2001 SC 676 [M/s. Dalmiya Cement (Bharat) Ltd., Vs. M/s. Galaxy Traders and Agencies Ltd. and others.

In the case of WamanSawant cited supra, this Court has held that though there is no express provision giving power to Magistrate to allow the amendment in the complaint, such power is there as such power is required for very existence and survival of the Criminal Court. In the second case of MaanAgro Centre cited supra, this Court has held that if there is no doubt about the identity of accused, it can be presumed that no prejudice will be caused, if the name of the accused is not correctly mentioned in the complaint. In the second case one case of RajastanHigh Court reported as 2004 (2) D.C.R. 158 [Bhim Singh vs. Kan Singh] was referred. Rajasthan High Court has held that mistakes can be rectified by Subordinate Criminal Courts by observing that Subordinate Courts are not powerless to do what is absolutely necessary for dispensation of justice in the absence of any specific provision preventing them to do so. In the third case M/s. Dalmia Cement c