TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleging that petitioner use to do agricultural work and also owns a nursery for which the petitioner borrowed a sum of ₹ 74,000/- from the respondent and in return gave an account payee cheque of ₹ 74,400/- of the State Bank of India dated 20.3.2009. It is further alleged that when the respondent presented the cheque in Barbai branch of State Bank of India, the same was dishonoured. Thereafter, a registered notice was given to the petitioner, but the amount has not been paid. After inquiry, the complaint has been registered and during the evidence, respondent was examined and cross-examined. After completion of the cross-examination, the respondent filed an application for amendment in the complaint before the trial Court submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supported the impugned order and submits that there is a typographical error which can be amended, therefore, there is no scope for any interference in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. 4. The crucial question arises for consideration before this Court is where the amendment in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act is permissible under the law. It is not disputed that there is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to allow the amendment. The order passed by the learned ASJ reveals that while dismissing the revision of the petitioner, it is observed by the learned ASJ that during cross-examination of the respondent/complainant suggestion given by the petitioner does not deny the existence of the q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter of Pt. Gorelal (supra), this Court has taken note of Kunstocom Electronics (I) Ltd's case, but still allowed the amendment referring the decision rendered in the matter of Pradeep Premchandani Vs. Smt. Neeta Jain (M.Cr. C. No. 2907/2007) decided on 18.9.2008, wherein this Court has held that so far as wrong mention of the cheque number either in the notice or in the complaint are concerned, the Court would always have the jurisdiction to look into the fact and do complete justice in the matter. Further a decision of Rajasthan High Court rendered in the matter of Bhim Singh Vs. Kansingh, 2004(2) DCR 158, wherein the application for amendment of cheque number and date of information by bank on ground of typographical mistake was all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a coordinate Bench must be followed. 18. In Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Harish Kumar Purohit, (2003) 5 SCC 480, this Court held that a Bench must follow the decision of a coordinate Bench and take the same view as has been taken earlier. The earlier decision of the coordinate Bench is binding upon any latter coordinate Bench deciding the same or similar issues. If the latter Bench wants to take a different view than that taken by the earlier Bench, the proper course is for it to refer the matter to a larger Bench. 9. Thus, looking to the fact that coordinate Bench of this Court has consistently held in Kunstocom Electronics (I) Ltd. and Sunder Dev (supra) which has been decided much prior to Pt. Gorelal's case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
