Amendments to correct typographical errors in legal documents are permissible under law when they do not cause prejudice to the opposing party.

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of respective parties.

3. A short challenge has been raised to the rejection of the amendment application by the Trial Court. The petitioner is complainant in SCC No. 316407/2015 relating to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘N.I. Act’). The petitioner sought amendment into the cause title of the complaint. Precisely, the complaint is filed by M/s. A. S. Polymers Private Ltd. Co. through its Manager Mr. Surendra Sharma. It is the petitioner’s contention that Mr. Surendra Sharma is a Director and thus, a typographical error occurred by mentioning him as a “Manager” instead of “Director”. To that extent, the petitioner sought amendment in the complaint, however it was rejected.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the proposed amendment was purely a typographical curable defect and therefore, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment. He would submit that throughout the petitioner came with a case that he is a Director of Private Limited Company. It is submitted that the petitioner and his son who is another Director, has examined in the complaint. However, the respondent/accused has not challenged that petitioner is a Director of the Company. In short, it is the submission that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if such amendment has been carried out. The petitioner has also filed supporting documents in the nature of certificate of incorporation and a copy of resolution to indicate that he is a Director of said Company.

5. The other side resisted this application by contending that at the fag end of the Trial, the amendment cannot be sought. In support of said contention, reliance is placed on certain decisions. Moreover, it is contended that the belated amendment would cause prejudice to the rights of the respondent/accused.

6. There is no dispute that a complaint is filed by the Private Limited Company through Mr. Surendra Sharma who has been stated as a Manager. The petitioner has produced copy of certificate of incorporation along with copy of resolution showing that he is one of the Director of the Company. Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors has been produced to support said contention. It reveals that the petitioner and his son has been examined, however the other side has not challenged that they are Directors of the Company. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by placing reliance on the decision of this Court in case of Dharmadas Bhiva Jadhav Vs. Arun Bhiva Jadhav and another, 2021(1) AIR Bom.R (Cri) 684 , would submit that amendment in criminal complaint is permissible. He has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Varun Pahwa Vs. Renu Chaudhary , (2019) 15 SCC 628 , wherein it is ruled that amendment rectifying procedural mistake in the cause title of suit/memo is permissible.

7. It is evident that the petitioner has come up with a case that he is a Director of Private Limited Company. The petitioner led evidence, wherein he never posed himself as a Manager. The respondent/accused has cross-examined the petitioner, however, there is no defence that he is not a Director of Company. Likewise, the petitioner has examined his son as another Director, however, it is not denied in cross-examined that the petitioner is a Director of the Company. It is evident that what is sought to be corrected is the nomenclature of petitioner which cannot be said to be intentional act on his part. The petitioner was nothing to gain by making incorrect nomenclature. Moreover, the respondent/accused has not challenged th