SHORT NOTE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Nisha Gupta, J.
Oswal Finlease Private Limited —Petitioner
versus
State of Rajasthan and another —Respondents
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 192 of 2013
Decided on 6.1.2014

IMPORTANT POINT
No person could be penalized for his bonafide mistake.

Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 and 142—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Dishonour of cheque—Denial of permission to make amendments in typographical errors in details of bounced cheque—Wrong cheque number has been narrated in complaint and affidavit in support of same also contains same wrong cheque number—Impugned cheque, return memo from bank and notice which were presented along with complaint bear cheque number which present petitioner now wants to correct—Court below while taking cognizance should be vigilant that complaint and affidavit should contain same cheque number which has been placed on record—No person could be penalized for his bonafide mistake—Petitioner allowed to make necessary amendments in complaint.

       Held: There is no dispute about the fact that wrong cheque number has been narrated in the complaint and affidavit in support of the same also contains same wrong cheque number but at the same time it is also true that impugned cheque, return memo from bank and notice which were presented along the complaint bear the cheque number which the present petitioner now wants to correct and the court below while taking cognizance should be vigilant that complaint and affidavit should contain the same cheque number which has been placed on record.

        Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that mistake is bonafide seems to be true. Respondent has relied on M. R. Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan where the complaint was filed about a particular cheque whereas cheque submitted before the trial court was different. Hence the accused was acquitted but here in the present case, present petitioner wants to rectify his bonafide mistake. Further reliance has been placed on Subodh S. Salaskar v. Jaiprakash M. Shah & Ors. where on the facts of the case, amendments on the complaint has been disallowed. But here in the present case, when complainant has been cross-examined, the mistake came to the notice of complainant and application for the rectification has been moved and no person could be penalized for his bonafide mistake.

        Hence, application is liable to be allowed and the present petitions is allowed and the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (SD) cum Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, No. 10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal complaint No. 869/2006 is set aside. Present petitioner is allowed to make necessary amendments in the complaint as about the details of bounced cheque and he is allowed to file a fresh affidavit in support of his complaint and the respondent is free to cross-examine on the same. With the aforesaid, this petitions is disposed of.

       Result: Cr. Misc. Petition allowed.