Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Kumar vs Rajesh Gupta on 24 January, 2014
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Criminal Revision No.3244 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.3244 of 2013
Date of decision:-24.1.2014
Shiv Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Rajesh Gupta
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present:- Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI J.(Oral)
Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29.8.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the revision filed by the respondent Rajesh Gupta challenging the order dated 25.4.2013 passed by the learned trial court, dismissing his application for rectifying the typographical mistake in the complaint was allowed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant-respondent had no legal right to move an application for amendment of the complaint; the wrong provisions were mentioned Asija Vijay 2014.02.06 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.3244 of 2013 -2- in the application for amending the complaint; and that the prayer of the respondent-complainant was only to the extent of rectifying the mistake at one place of the complaint while the learned revisional Court has allowed him to rectify the said mistake in all the documents available on record. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on M.R. Choudhary vs. State of Rajashan and another, 2012(3) Civil Court Cases 706. In spite of service, no one has put in appearance for the respondent-complainant.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner-accused and gone through the material available on record.
The respondent-complainant had filed a comploaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner on the premise that cheque No.591281 for Rs.1,06,000/- was issued in favour of the complainant by the petitioner-accused. When the said cheque bounced then after complying with the formalities, he presented the complaint before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate and during pendency of the said complaint, it was realized that the date of issuance of the cheque mentioned in the complaint was 20.1.2010 instead of 20.2.2010 as mentioned in the complaint. The respondent-complainant moved an application for carrying out the correction of this date in the complaint. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 25.4.2013 dismissed the said application holding that the respondent-complainant had mentioned the wrong provision in Asija Vijay 2014.02.06 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.3244 of 2013 -3- the application under which the said application was filed and that the error as pointed out by him could not be rectified by way of filing such application.
Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial court, the respondent-complainant approached the Court of Session by way of revision petition, which was allowed and the respondent- complainant was permitted to rectify the mistake pointed out by him in his application subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs, to be paid by the complainant-respondent to the petitioner-accused. The petitioner-accused was relegated to cross-examine the complainant or any other witness with regard to the aforesaid change in the date as well as to defend himself in relation to the above change as per provisions of law. The petitioner-accused was not satisfied with the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and hence the present criminal revision petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner though argued that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for amendment of the complaint but this Court does not agree with his submissions. The application was moved not for amendment of the complaint but for rectifying the clerical mistake of the date mentioned in the complaint. By rectification of the said date, the very substratum of the case would not change. Even while enacting Section 362 Cr.P.C., the legislature was conscious of the fact that the Asija Vijay 2014.02.06 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.3244 of 2013 -4- clerical mistake may happen at any stage, therefore, specific
-provision was enacted that even after pronouncement of the judgment or order if it is found that there was some clerical or arithmetical mistake, the same could be rectified. The contents of the application and the order passed by the learned revisional court is clear answer to the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the wrong provisions were mentioned in the application for rectifying the mistake has also been answered by the learned revisional Court when it was held that there was no provision mentioned in the application rather the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the wrong provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for amendment of the application were mentioned. Even otherwise, the learned revisional Court has placed reliance on T. Nagappa vs. Y.R. Murlidhar, 2008(2) Apex Court Judgments 229 (S.C.) wherein it was observed that no mentioning or wrong mentioning of the provisions of law would not be of any relevance, if the Court had the requisite jurisdiction to pass an order. The law cited by the learned revisional Court is completely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. So far as the ratio of the judgment in M.R. Choudhary's case (supra) is concerned, there is no conflict with regard to the findings pronouncement by Hon'ble the Rajasthan High Court but the facts of the said case are entirely on different Asija Vijay 2014.02.06 18:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.3244 of 2013 -5- footings. The complainant of the said case had prayed for amendment of the cheque number, which would change the very substratum of the case but in the case in hand, the complainant had prayed for a rectification of the date in the complaint.
In view of the grounds mentioned in the application, the copy of which has been placed on record and the findings recorded by learned revisional Court, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
January 24, 2014 ( NARESH KUMAR SANGHI )
Vijay Asija JUDGE
Asija Vijay
2014.02.06 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court,Chandigarh