Azizoddin vs Pandit Dindayal Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd.

A.I.S. Cheema, J.—Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

In this matter, Respondent (complainant) has filed complaint bearing STCC No. 180 of 2008 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shahada, u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint has been filed against present Petitioner accused. When the complaint was filed, the name of the accused was shown as "Shri Shah Aminoddin Rafiyoddin". Subsequently the complainant filed application Exhibit 18 for correction in the name of the accused, as complainant realized that correct name of accused is "Shah Ajijoddin Rafiyoddin". The Respondent, (complainant therein) claimed that by oversight the error in the name has taken place 3 and thus the correction was sought. The accused was called upon to give his say but instead of giving say, he filed discharge application on the same ground. The trial Court after hearing both sides, observed that it is quasi civil proceedings and allowed the application for correction of the name of the accused and rejected application for discharge.

Revision was filed having Criminal Revision Petition No. 8 of 2013 before the Sessions Court, Shahada. The Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada heard the parties and has dismissed the Revision with a compensatory cost of Rs.1500/- to the complainant.

I have heard learned counsel for both sides. The learned counsel for the Petitioner accused, is submitting that in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 there is no power given to the Judicial Magistrate First Class to allow 4 amendment in the complaint and thus the amendment carried out is without the procedure. The Magistrate did not have any inherent powers to permit such rectification, although the High Court could do it under inherent powers to do justice.

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 however, has referred to the reasonings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge and relied on the case of Maan Agro Centre Vs. EID Parry (India) Ltd. and Another, According to the learned counsel, it has already been held that typographical error could be corrected.

The Revisional Court observed in the Judgment that the statutory notice after dishonour of the cheque was issued by the complainant to the accused with his correct name; the whole transaction between the complainant and accused pertaining to section 138 of the Negotiable 5 Instruments Act, had taken place with correct name of the accused and the mistake in the name of the accused occurred only in the complaint. Keeping in view the above facts and the Judgment in the case of Maan Agro (supra), referred by the counsel for Respondent, the Revision was dismissed.

If the Judgment in the matter of Maan Agro (supra)is perused, it was observed in Para 14 as under:

"14................................. In this view of the matter whether the accused was described as Maan Agro Centre through its proprietor Aminullah Khan or whether he is described Aminullah Khan Proprietor of Maan Agro Centre will make no difference. It would not cause any prejudice whatsoever to the petitioner/accused. As such the Revisional Court was fully justified in permitting the complainant to insert the name of Aminullah Khan as 6 the proprietor thereof."

Looking to the observations in the matter of Maan Agro (supra) and also considering the facts of the present case, it would amount to injustice if such typographical error in part of the name of accused is not allowed to be corrected. Procedural laws could not be so stretched that party could be allowed to escape from criminal liabilities for typing error. It is not a case of amendment of the contents of the complaint. It is not a case that person ''A'' is being substituted for ''B''. It is a matter of correction of part of the name of the accused, in cause title. There is no substance in the Writ Petition and it deserves to be rejected with costs.

Learned counsel for Petitioner, at this stage, submitted that application for correction in the name of the accused was filed, four years 7 after filing the complaint and therefore costs may not be imposed. However, looking to the Judgment of the Revisional Court, which, while dismissing the Revision Application, imposed compensatory costs of Rs.1500/-, the Petitioner still carried this Writ Petition just to take disadvantage of the clerical error in the name. As such I am not convinced by the submission of the counsel for Petitioner that costs may not be awarded in this Petition.

For the reasons stated above, there is no substance in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is rejected with costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent. Rule stands discharged.