Bansal Milk Chilling Centre v. Rana Milk Food Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2025
The Court emphasized that the amendment was made before cross-examination started, so the accused would have a full opportunity to contest the evidence and facts at trial.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
26 July 2025
Judges
Justices BV Nagarathna ⦁ KV Viswanathan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The complainant, Bansal Milk Chilling Centre, filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of cheque issued by the accused.
-
A typographical error occurred in both the legal notice and complaint where the goods supplied were described as “Desi Ghee (milk products)” instead of “milk.” This was an inadvertent mistake carried through the documents.
-
The complainant’s chief-examination was completed, but the cross-examination of the complainant had not yet begun when the request to amend was made.
-
The Trial Court allowed the amendment application to correct the description, but the High Court later reversed this decision, disallowing the amendment, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Whether an amendment to a criminal complaint can be allowed after cognizance has been taken by the trial court?
-
Whether the proposed amendment would cause prejudice or disadvantage to the accused, potentially affecting the fairness of the trial?
-
Whether the change from “Desi Ghee” to “milk” constitutes a minor typographical error or a substantive alteration that impacts the fundamental nature of the complaint?
-
Whether there are adequate procedural safeguards and established legal principles that govern and justify allowing amendments to complaints post-cognizance without compromising justice?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court held that amendments are permissible even at the post-cognizance stage, provided they do not alter the fundamental nature of the complaint or cause prejudice to the accused.
-
The Court emphasized that the amendment was made before cross-examination started, so the accused would have a full opportunity to contest the evidence and facts at trial.
-
It was observed that the correction from “Desi Ghee” to “milk” was a curable procedural irregularity and did not affect the existence of the debt or liability.
-
The Court restored the Trial Court’s order allowing the amendment and set aside the High Court’s decision disallowing it.
Held
-
The appeal was allowed, thereby permitting the amendment to the complaint.
-
The Court ruled that such amendments, when made without prejudice to the accused and before the conclusion of evidence, promote substantive justice over mere procedural technicalities.
-
The judgment stressed that courts should be lenient towards curable errors and focus on the merits of the case rather than letting minor mistakes obstruct justice.
-
It also highlighted that the accused’s right to a fair trial remains intact as they have ample opportunity to contest the amendment during the trial.
Analysis
-
The judgment reinforces the principle that procedural rules should not be applied rigidly when it results in injustice or denial of legitimate claims.
-
By allowing amendments post-cognizance, the Court aims to strike a balance between protecting the accused’s rights and ensuring that genuine grievances are addressed.
-
Reference to Sections 216 and 217 CrPC underscores that the law itself contemplates alterations during trial, as long as they don’t prejudice the parties.
-
The judgment’s reliance on the precedent in R. Sukumar strengthens the legal foundation for permitting amendments in criminal complaints and prevents misuse of technical objections to derail cases.
-
Overall, the decision promotes a justice-oriented and pragmatic approach within the criminal trial process.