Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan further observed procedural law was meant to aid justice, not hinder it.
The top court's verdict reinforced the principle that procedural technicalities must not override the course of justice and allowed an amendment in a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
When a charge is altered, the court said, if there is no prejudice to the accused, the trial can proceed.
'Further, if it is likely to prejudice, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial to such a period. Section 217 of the CrPC grants liberty to the prosecutor and the accused to recall witnesses when charges are altered under the conditions prescribed therein. The test of 'prejudice to the accused' is the cardinal factor that needs to be borne in mind,' it added.
The court found it appropriate to observe that amendments to complaints were "not alien" to the Code of Criminal Procedure .
'Section 216 of the CrPC deals with the power of court to alter any charge and the concept of prejudice to the accused. No doubt when a charge is altered, what is altered is the legal provision and its application to a certain set of facts. The facts per se may not be altered….,' the bench said.
The case at hand stemmed from a complaint that three cheques issued by the respondents, amounting to ₹14 lakh, dishonoured.
The complaint alleged the cheques were issued for the purchase of 'Desi Ghee '.
However, the complainant later sought to amend the complaint to correct a purported typographical error stating that the goods sold were actually 'milk.'
While the trial court allowed the amendment in September 2023, holding no prejudice would be caused as the cross-examination had not yet begun, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed its decision.
The high court observed the amendment changed the nature of the complaint and potentially had tax implications under the GST regime.
Setting aside the high court verdict, the top court held the amendment was a 'curable irregularity' and that it did not cause any prejudice to the accused.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
8 minutes ago
- The Print
The court is not Rahul Gandhi's uncle. Its job is to protect rights, not preach
'It is the responsibility of political parties, especially the Leader of Opposition, to comment on issues of national interest. When a government fails so spectacularly to defend our borders, it is every citizen's moral duty to hold it accountable,' said the statement. How do you know that 2,000 sq km was acquired by China? What is the credible material? A true Indian would not say this. When there is a conflict at the border, can you say such things?' said a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court Monday, dealing with Rahul Gandhi's petition asking for quashing of defamation proceedings against him. All this, while the court stayed the proceedings and issued notice to the complainant to show cause why the criminal complaint should not go on. On the other hand, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has expressed his 'gratitude' to the Supreme Court, and Kerala BJP President Rajeev Chandrashekhar said, 'I don't think there is anybody in this country who will disagree with what the Supreme Court has said.' The Supreme Court has only itself to blame for being censured by an opposition bloc and becoming part of a political slugfest. Moral policing by courts This comes on the heels of the wisdom spewed by the Bombay High Court about a week ago. While dismissing a writ petition by the CPI(M) and CPI challenging the Mumbai Police's denial of permission to protest at Azad Maidan in support of Gaza, the court questioned the parties' patriotism. 'You are looking at Gaza and Palestine while neglecting what is happening here. Why don't you do something for your own country? Look at your own country. Be patriots. People say they are patriots, but this is not patriotism. Show patriotism for the citizens of our own country first,' said the high court. The CPI(M) Polit Bureau condemned the court's observations in a sharply worded statement. 'Ironically, the bench appears to be unaware of either the provisions of the Constitution which enshrines the rights of a political party, or the history of our country and our people's solidarity with the Palestinians and their legitimate right to homeland… The observations overlook the fact that Mahatma Gandhi in the 40s of the last century, the national movement and subsequent foreign policy of independent India had not flinched from supporting the cause of Palestinian people's right to freedom and homeland,' the document read. Following this, a senior advocate urged the court to take suo motu cognisance of the CPI(M)'s press note as criminal contempt. But the judges wisely refrained, sparing themselves further embarrassment. There have been other instances of the courts making ex cathedra observations while giving protection to petitioners—observations which smack of moral policing or 'lessons in good taste'. In the case of one YouTube video creator, the Supreme Court observed: 'There is something dirty in this person's mind that has been vomited by him through this program. Why the courts should favour him?' It proceeded to protect him from arrest. In a case regarding a university professor's Facebook post in the context of the recent India-Pakistan conflict, the Court remarked: 'This is what we call in the law – dog whistling! … Some of the opinions are not offending to the nation as such. But while giving an opinion, if you … [choose words] deliberately .. to insult, humiliate or cause discomfort to other persons… he could convey the very same feelings in a simple language without hurting others.' Also read: Where is Skill India money going? It's a Rs 48,000 crore mystery A court's purview This judicial proneness to verbal excess is not something new. I remember writing about this 28 years ago in the context of gratuitous observations made by judges of those times. Today, wide publicity to court proceedings and live-streaming should have had a sobering effect on our judges. They ought to be circumspect and apply constitutional tests to cases coming before them. This is not to say that judges should be robotic, hyper-formal entities. They are human, and the stray comment while thinking through legal problems, or a humorous or frustrated aside, is not only inevitable but a necessary reminder of this humanity. However, the court is not the citizen's uncle. It is not there to teach or preach. Which humanitarian crisis should be prioritised, which words are 'simple' enough to avoid hurting anyone's feelings, or who is a 'true Indian', are not questions warranting the courts' input. When a citizen approaches a court complaining that their right to free speech—or any other fundamental right—has been violated, it only needs to see whether they are entitled to constitutional protection. The citizen does not need to be told what they ought to have said or done. Raju Ramachandran is a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India. Views are personal. (Edited by Prasanna Bachchhav)
New Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Siroya slams Hariprasad for casting aspersions on apex court
BENGALURU: BJP Rajya Sabha member Lahar Singh Siroya slammed senior Congress leader and MLC BK Hariprasad for casting aspersions on the Supreme Court after it warned Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi for his remarks on the Indian Army. 'Whether Hariprasad's comments constitute contempt of court is not for me to decide, but as a politician, I recognise a very organised propaganda of the Congress under Rahul, which is trying to assault institutions like the Election Commission of India and the Supreme Court of India. To save their party, they want to spread lies and anarchy,' Siroya said responding to Hariprasad's remarks. The BJP MP said, Hariprasad, in his Kannada 'X' post, said that the Supreme Court's remarks on Rahul is indicative not just of the falling standards of the court, but is also of its support to a dictatorial attitude. 'Hariprasad also says that the court has disrespected a person who is recognised by our Constitution as 'shadow PM'. How can someone who holds a constitutional post disrespect another person who holds a constitutional post, he says, targeting the judge. At the end, he shockingly says the Supreme Court and some High Courts are making politically inspired observations and judgements in recent times,' the BJP MP said, referring to Hariprasad's remarks. He said Rahul's indiscretions are well known, and he is certainly not above the law. If Rahul has to be respected, he too should display maturity, decorum, and propriety that his constitutional post expects, the BJP MP said.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Governor RN Ravi reserves Kalaignar University Bill for President's assent, delays new varsity launch
CHENNAI: Governor RN Ravi has reserved the Kalaignar University Bill, passed by the legislative assembly to form a new university in Kumbakonam with the chief minister as chancellor, for the President's consideration. 'The governor has not given immediate assent to the bill but has instead, referred it to the President for a decision. This will further delay the process of formation of the university as we have to wait for the President's reply, ' said a higher education official. The President can either give assent, withhold assent, or return the bill for state government had announced the new university in the name of former Chief Minister M Karunanidhi in Kumbakonam in this year's budget. The bill proposed that the chief minister (presently MK Stalin) will be the chancellor of the university and the higher education minister would be the pro-chancellor. The bill was moved in the legislative Assembly in April this year and later sent to governor for his assent. Chezhiaan had announced that the university would start functioning from academic year 2025-26 only, however due to delay in governor's assent the department could not inaugurate the varsity, said a higher education official. Stalin and higher education minister Govi Chezhian had expressed their displeasure, claiming the governor had been sitting on the bill for three months and that the government was considering moving the SC again. The Supreme Court's landmark judgment in April approved 10 amendment bills that curtailed the governor's powers to appoint V-Cs in 18 of the 20 state-run universities. However, another bill to amend the University of Madras Act is also pending President's approval. Apart from approving the bills, the SC also set a timeline for governors to act on bills.
