IMPORTANT POINT
Trial Court has no inherent power under the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, in exercise of inherent power, it was not open to the learned Trial Court to have allowed the amendment of the complaint.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. — The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28th March 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent herein.

2. Respondent Manjit Kaur filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, Para 8 of the said complaint reads as under:

“That the said cheque was presented by the complainant from time to time but it was dishonoured with the remarks bearing “Insufficient Funds”. However accused assured that he will arrange the funds and the cheque will be encashed so accordingly the said cheque was lastly presented by the complainant on 14.6.2003 which was dishonoured and returned uncashed with the memo dated 14.6.2003.”

3. The said complaint was filed on 28th of August 2003 by taking the starting point of limitation to be l4th of June, 2003. Thus apparently the complaint was time barred and not maintainable. Even otherwise, the averments made in Para 8 showed that even prior to 4th June, 2003 the cheque had been dishonoured and, therefore, the complaint on the basis of dishonouring of the cheque second time was not within limitation.

4. On 9th October 2004, the respondent moved an application for making necessary correction with regard to date of presentation of the cheque with the Bank as well as memo of dishonour of cheque by the Banker of the accused.

5. It was pleaded in the said application that the respondent wanted to change the date of presentation of the cheque from 14th of June to 28th of June 2003. The complainant-respondent also sought to make an averment that the cheque was dishonoured and returned with memo lastly on 2nd July 2003 and not 14th June, 2003. She sought that the date be corrected to 2nd July, 2003.

The application was contested.

The learned trial Court rejected the said application by observing as under:

“Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant stated that the proposed amendments referred to by him in this application are typographical mistake, which the Court can correct by invoking its inherent powers. In this regard reliance placed upon Yankay Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. M/s. City Bank1; Bhim Singh v. Kan Singh2 and M/s. Bedi Sons Steels & Wires v. M/s. B.G. Brothers.3 A perusal of these judgments goes to show that it has been categorically held that it is only typographical mistake which can be corrected by the court by invoking its inherent powers. In the case in hand, on the basis of cheque dated 31.3.2003 having been presented in the bank for encashment and having been returned unpaid vide memo dated 14.6.2003, notice was served upon the accused which is dated 22.7.2003 and the present complaint was filed. The complaint in question correctly specifies the number and date of cheque; date of the memo and date of the notice. The notice dated 22.7.2003 which has been got exhibit mark as C6 speaks about the cheque dated 31.3.2002 issued by the accused and having been dishonoured by the bank vide memo dated 14.6.2003. The counsel for the complainant/ applicant by present application wants to change the date of the last memo and for this purpose he has placed on the file fresh memo dated 2.7.2003. It is noteworthy that the change which the applicant wants to incorporate is not at all typographical mistake but if the present application is allowed it will entirely change the nature of the case, the offence under Section 138 being of highly technical character. Notice in the present case on the basis of which the present complaint has been filed was got served upon the accused on the basis of cheque dated 31.3.2003 which was dishonoured vide memo dated 14.6.2003. Giving notice and demanding payment of the amount covered by this cheque is one of the main ingredients under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. If the main ingredient is not correct no offence is made out under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus if the