The judgment established the legality of amendments in complaints, the vicarious liability of individuals in a firm under Section 141 of the NI Act, and the burden of proof on the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri. Akhilesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri. Munne Lal, learned A.G.A. for State and Shri.Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

2. The petitioners herein are challenging the orders dated 7.9.2021 and 12.10.2021 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Complaint No.11580 of 2021 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station-Brahmpuri, District-Meerut, whereby respectively amendment in complaint was allowed and petitioners were summoned and the order dated 18.7.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.20 Meerut in Criminal Revision No.81 of 2022 by which criminal revision was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners has vehemently argued that essential ingredient to file complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act are absent in the present case. He submitted that the petitioner no.2 i.e. Saurabh Bansal, alleged to be a working partner of firm namely Narendra Kumar and Brothers was not supported by any document and whatever transactions were made between petitioner no.2 and complainant were in their personal capacity and the company as such was not involved and further petitioner no.3, Narendra Kumar was not even made a party in original complaint and was added by way of amendment which was not permissible.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that no notice was issued to petitioner no.3 and no details about service of notice upon petitioners was mentioned in complaint and lastly he submitted that there was no specific allegations in regard to the company as well as petitioners.

5. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon judgments of Supreme Court in DCM Financial Services Ltd. Vs. J.N. Sareen & Anr, AIR 2008 SC 2255: (2008) 8 SCC 1, Dilip Hariramani Vs. Bank of Baroda, AIRONLINE 2022 SC 668: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 579, Alka Khandu Avhad Vs. Amar Syamprasad Mishra, AIRONLINE 2021 SC 124, S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Anr, AIR 2005 SC 3512, S.R.Sukumar Vs. S.Sunaad Raghuram, (2015) 9 SCC 609, Mannalal Chamaria Vs.State of West Bengal, AIR 2014 SC 2240, Mrs. Aparna A.Shah Vs. M/s.Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, AIR 2013 SC 3210 and the judgment of Allahabad High Court in application under Section 482 No.234 of 2008, Smt. Vimla Devi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr, decided on 9.2.2017.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has vehemently opposed above referred submissions that complainant issued a notice on 30.6.2021 addressed to M/s. Narendra Kumar and Brothers through its Proprietor Shri. Narendra Kumar and Saurabh Bansal (Active partner/authorised signatory) and that contention of learned counsel for applicants that no notice was issued to applicant nos. 2 and 3 are contrary to records and has placed reliance on a copy of demand notice annexed to this application as Annexure No.3.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that complainant has moved an application on 7.9.2021 to carry out an amendment in cause title which was allowed by learned trial court on same day and by way of amendment, cause title of complaint was amended and Narendra Kumar, son of Banwari Lal (Properietor) was arrayed as an accused no.2 and in this regard he has placed reliance upon the judgment of S.R.Sukumar (supra).

8. Accused No.1 M/s. Narendra Kumar and Brothers was arrayed through its working partners through Saurabh Bansal and its properietor Narendra Kumar. Counsel placed reliance upon S.P. Maniand Mohan Dairy Vs. Dr. Snehlatha Elangovan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1238, that there was no legal requirement for the complainant to show that accused partner of firm was aware about each and every transaction.

9. The first issue before this Court is whether amendment in a complaint was legally permissible?

10. In this regard rival parties have placed reliance on S.R.Sukumar (Supra).

11. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that amendment which could cause prejudice to accused, such cannot be allowed.