JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned advocate for the parties. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. Respondent No.1 had filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar bearing SCC No. 569/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 138 whereby the accused persons are shown as below:

“1. Managing Director,

Bhuleshwar Sugar Works Ltd.

R/o. Gut No. 181, Dist. Pune,

Office-E 12/4, MIDC, Jejuri,

Tq. Purandar, Dist. Pune, 412303”

3. The complaint is proceeded. Evidence is also recorded and the application came to be filed below Exh. 254 by the original complainant seeking amendment in the name of accused No.1 by deleting the word ‘Managing Director’ and to show accused No.1 as below;

“1. Bhuleshwar Sugar Works Ltd.

Through Managing director

R/o. Gut No. 181 Rise, Tq. Purandar

Dist. Pune, Office-E 12/4, MIDC Jejuri,

Tq. Purandar, Dist. Pune, 412303”

4. The petitioner filed its say opposing the application stating that no such amendment can be made as there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code. There would be change of identity stating that Managing Director of the petitioner factory is different than the factory namely Bhuleshwar Sugar Works Ltd. and thus entire evidence will have to be raised in respect of Bhuleshwar Sugar Works Ltd. He submits that in fact while filing the complaint itself the complaint ought to have been in the name of Bhuleshwar Sugar works Ltd. in view of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which reads as below:

Section 141: Offences by Companies-(1) If the person committing an offence under Section 138 is a company, every person who at the time of offence was committed, was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

5. Reading section 141 the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that thus it was necessary to show Bhuleshwar Sugar Works Ltd. itself as respondent since it is not shown. As such the complaint itself was not maintainable. For this reason application for amendment is not maintainable and amendment would be against the law.

6. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar by judgment and order dated 05-07-2022 held that it is typographical mistake, therefore, words Managing Director is shown about Bhuleshwar Sugar Works Ltd. and it should have been Bhuleshwar Sugar Works Ltd. through the Managing Director. As such there is no change of identity as the notices were already issued. By considering the judgment Maan Agro Centre Vs EID Parry (India) Ltd and another reported in 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 934, the application came to be allowed by order dated 05-07-2022.

7. The petitioner is challenging the said order by filing criminal revision No. 63 of 2022 in the court of Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. Learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar after considering various judgments and the arguments dismissed the criminal revision by order dated 08-09-2022 by maintaining the order dated 05-07-2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar in RCC No. 569 of 2016 below Exh.254. While considering the revision, learned Sessions Judge, has relied upon various judgments and concluded that by making change as prayed for there would be no change of identity of the accused persons. The petitioner before this court has vehemently submitted that in view of section 141 of the N. I. Act it is very much necessary for the complainant to show the accused with specific description. It is not only the case of giving wrong description, but if the amendment is allowed, the identity of the accused would be changed and therefore, it is not permissible. He argued that since inception care was required to be taken by the complainant, the complainant has filed application after the evidence is over and when the case is for hearing and as such at this stage, making any c