Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC

The Supreme Court on Friday said procedure was only a "handmaiden and not a mistress of justice" and held courts can allow amendment in criminal complaints if changes do not cause any prejudice to the accused in trial.

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 (CrPC).

"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 Rs 14 lakh, dishonoured.

The complaint alleged the cheques were issued for the purchase of "Desi Ghee (milk products)".

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 story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)