On 8 April 2022, Bansal Milk Chilling Centre filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against Rana Milk Food Pvt. Ltd., alleging dishonour of three cheques amounting to ₹14 lakhs. The complaint stated that the respondents had purchased Desi Ghee (milk products), but the cheques issued for the same were dishonoured.
Before cross-examination began, the complainant filed an application for amendment, stating that due to a typographical error, the goods mentioned as “Desi Ghee (milk products)” should have been “milk.”
On 2 September 2023, the Trial Court allowed the amendment, observing:
“Since the complainant was yet to be cross-examined, no prejudice would be caused to the accused. The error appeared typographical and was raised at an initial stage.”
The respondents challenged the Trial Court's decision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Punjab & Haryana High Court reversed the order, reasoning that:
- The amendment changed the nature of the complaint, and
- The move might be intended to avoid GST liability, since milk is not taxable under the GST Act, 2017, unlike Desi Ghee.
Read also:- BNSS Mandates Prior Notice to Accused Before Cognizance: Delhi High Court Reinforces New Safeguard
Supreme Court's Key Observations
The Supreme Court, after hearing both parties, set aside the High Court’s order and reinstated the Trial Court’s ruling.
“Procedure is only a handmaiden and not a mistress of justice. A simple amendment should not stall a trial for years.”
- The Court relied on its earlier ruling in S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram (2015) 9 SCC 609, where it allowed amendments to complaints, even without a direct provision under CrPC.
- Also referred to U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery (1987) 3 SCC 684, where a formal amendment was considered valid despite procedural flaws.
- The SC clarified that amendments post-cognizance are not barred, especially when:
- The amendment corrects a curable legal error
- It does not cause prejudice to the accused
“The amendment was sought before cross-examination began. The factual dispute can be thrashed out during the trial.”
Read also:- Bombay HC Rules: Spouse’s Taunts Over Skin Tone, Cooking Skills Don’t Amount to Abetment of Suicide
“The High Court erred in delving into GST issues which are irrelevant at this stage and fall under the jurisdiction of appropriate tax authorities.”
- Section 2(d) CrPC: Even an oral complaint is valid, except in NI Act cases which mandate a written complaint under Section 142.
- Sections 216 & 217 CrPC: These sections permit alteration of charges and recall of witnesses, highlighting flexibility in criminal trials if no prejudice is caused.
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Analogous provisions (Sections 239 & 240) support the same principle of ensuring justice over procedural technicality.
“We find that absolutely no prejudice would be caused to the accused/respondents... It was a curable irregularity which the Trial Court rightly addressed.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered:
- Restoration of Trial Court’s order dated 2 September 2023
- Trial to proceed expeditiously
- Liberty for both parties to recall witnesses, if required
Case: Bansal Milk Chilling Centre vs. Rana Milk Food Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 25 July 2025
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Appeal Type: Criminal Appeal (SLP (Crl.) No. 15699 of 2024)