The Supreme Court ruled that courts can permit amendments in criminal complaints if they don’t harm the accused. It reaffirmed that procedural rules must serve justice, not obstruct it.
New Delhi: Today, on July 25, the Supreme Court of India has made an important decision about the role of procedure in legal trials. The Court clearly stated that legal procedures should help in delivering justice and not create hurdles.
A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan ruled that criminal complaints can be amended during the trial stage, as long as the changes do not harm the accused.
The Court observed,
“procedure was only a handmaiden and not a mistress of justice”,
highlighting that laws about procedure should support justice instead of becoming a roadblock.
This significant judgment was delivered in a case related to a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with cheque bounce cases.
The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural law was meant to aid justice, not hinder it. The ruling underlined that strict adherence to technicalities should not overpower the main aim of the legal system – delivering justice.
The issue in this case arose from a complaint involving three cheques totaling Rs 14 lakh, which were allegedly dishonoured.
The complainant had originally stated that the cheques were issued for the purchase of “Desi Ghee”. Later, the complainant realized there was a typographical mistake and requested to amend the complaint to correct it – changing the product sold from “Desi Ghee” to “milk”.
While the trial court allowed this amendment in September 2023, saying that no harm would be caused to the accused since cross-examination had not yet begun, the Punjab and Haryana High Court disagreed.
The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision, stating that the amendment might change the nature of the complaint and could possibly have implications under GST laws.
However, the Supreme Court stepped in and overturned the High Court’s verdict. It declared that such an amendment was only a “curable irregularity” and did not cause any disadvantage to the accused. The top court held that amendments like this are not unknown in criminal law.
The Court said,
“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.”
The Court further stated that amendments to complaints are “not alien” to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
It elaborated on this by referencing Section 216 of the CrPC, which allows courts to alter any charge during trial and stresses that such alterations should be judged on whether they cause harm or “prejudice” to the accused.
The bench explained,
“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….”
In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed that the factual scenario remained the same – only the description of the goods sold had a minor correction.
As such, no prejudice was caused to the accused and justice should not be denied due to such a typographical error.
Click Here to Read More Reports On CJI Gavai
