Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHULESHWAR SUGAR WORKS LTD., PURANDAR AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
N.R. FABRICATORS AND ERECTORS, SHRI. N.R. SATPUTE (DIRECTOR) AND ANOTHER – Respondent
WP 1419 2022
BORULKAR AVINASH R. 2) THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. HANUMANT DYANOBA BHAGAT, ANDHALE SANDIP RAMNATH, ANDHALE SANDIP RAMNATH AND KARALE AND ASSOCIATES (FOR R/1)2) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAAdvocate
A trial court has inherent powers to allow the amendment of a complaint in the absence of any specific provision prohibiting it, even if the amendment changes the name of the accused, provided that the identity of the accused is not changed.
Headnote:
AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, SECTION 141 - IDENTITY OF ACCUSED - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - INHERENT POWERS OF COURT
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the Managing Director of Bhuleshwar Sugar Works Ltd. for dishonoring a cheque. The complainant later filed an application to amend the complaint to show the accused as Bhuleshwar Sugar Works Ltd. itself, arguing that Section 141 of the Act required the accused to be named specifically. The trial court allowed the amendment, and the Sessions Court upheld the order. The petitioner, Bhuleshwar Sugar Works Ltd., challenged the order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the amendment did not change the identity of the accused and that the trial court had inherent powers to allow the amendment in the absence of any specific provision prohibiting it. The court also considered the effect of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and held that it did not prevent the amendment in this case.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment of the complaint to change the name of the accused from the Managing Director to the company itself was permissible. 2. Whether the trial court had the inherent power to allow such an amendment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The amendment did not change the identity of the accused because the company and its Managing Director were one and the same entity. 2. The trial court had inherent powers to allow the amendment in the absence of any specific provision prohibiting it. 3. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act did not prevent the amendment in this case.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the trial court allowing the amendment of the complaint.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
51 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1419 OF 2022 MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHULESHWAR SUGAR WORKS LTD., PURANDAR AND ANOTHER VERSUS N.R. FABRICATORS AND ERECTORS, SHRI. N.R. SATPUTE (DIRECTOR) AND ANOTHER Mr. Avinash R. Borulkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. R. Andhale, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mrs. D. S. Jape, APP for the respondents/State CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
DATE: 09th JANUARY, 2023 P. C.
1. Heard the learned advocate for the parties. By consent of 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. 564/2016 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. 194 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.
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 a 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 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. 64 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. 564 of 2016 below Exh.194. While considering the revision, learned Sessions Judge, has relied upon various judgments and has come to a conclusion 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 complai
