BANSAL MILK CHILLING CENTREversusRANA MILK FOOD PRIVATE LTD. & ANR.

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1631 : 2025 INSC 899

                     Bansal Milk Chilling Centre
                                 v.
                  Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & Anr.
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 3178 of 2025)
                                  25 July 2025
           [B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       When can amendments to complaints be allowed after cognizance
       is taken; whether on facts, any prejudice would be caused to
       the accused-respondents if the amendment to the complaint, as
       prayed, is allowed.

                                   Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Negotiable Instruments
       Act, 1881 – Amendments to complaints post-cognizance –
       Test of ‘prejudice to the accused’ – Appellant filed complaint
       u/s.138, NI Act, against the accused-respondents stating that
       the respondents had purchased Desi Ghee (milk products)
       but, the cheques issued by them were dishonored – However,
       after cognizance was taken, the appellant filed an amendment
       application to amend the complaint stating that due to a
       typographical mistake it was pleaded in the complaint that
       the respondents had purchased Desi Ghee (milk products)
       while it should have been milk – Amendment allowed by Trial
       Court – Order set aside by High Court – Interference with:
       Held: The amendment was moved at a stage when after summons
       being issued to the respondents, the chief examination of the
       complainant had concluded and when cross-examination was
       awaited – The amendment made is also only with regard to the
       products supplied – On the facts of the present case and considering
       the stage of the trial, no prejudice would be caused to the accused-
       respondents – It was a curable irregularity which the Trial Court
       rightly addressed by allowing the amendment – No failure of justice
       would occasion by allowing the amendment at a stage when the
       evidence of the complainant was incomplete – Amendment did not
       alter the nature and character of the complaint – Order of the High
       Court set aside and that of the Trial Court is restored. [Paras 17-20]

* Author
1632                                                    [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


                               Case Law Cited
    S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram [2015] 9 SCR 1105 :
    (2015) 9 SCC 609; U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi
    Distillery and Others [1987] 3 SCR 798 : (1987) 3 SCC 684;
    Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy
    Swarna Kumari and Another [2016] 2 SCR 608 : (2016) 11 SCC
    774 – relied on.
    Munish Kumar Gupta v. Mittal Trading Company, 2024 SCC OnLine
    1732 – distinguished.

                                 List of Acts
    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Negotiable Instruments Act,
    1881; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

                              List of Keywords
    Amendments to complaints after cognizance is taken; Amendments
    to complaints post-cognizance; Amendment to the complaint;
    Amendment application; Test of ‘prejudice to the accused’; No
    prejudice caused to accused; Typographical mistake; Inadvertent
    error; Curable irregularity; Desi Ghee (milk products); Milk;
    Amendment to the complaint allowed; Stage of amendment;
    Summons issued to the accused; Complainant yet to be cross-
    examined; Evidence of the complainant incomplete, No failure
    of justice; Amendment did not alter nature and character of the
    complaint; Cheques dishonored.

                              Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    3178 of 2025
    From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2024 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 53932
    of 2023

                        Appearances for Parties
    Adv. for the Appellant:
    Chritarth Palli.
    Advs. for the Respondents:
    Aabhas Kshetarpal, Dhiliban Varadarajan, Harsh N Dudhe.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      1633

     Bansal Milk Chilling Centre v. Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & Anr.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

      K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1.    Leave granted.
2.    Procedure, it is said, is only a handmaiden and not a mistress of
      justice. However, the said adage has been followed only in the breach
      in this case. A simple issue of an amendment to a complaint has
      held up a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
      1881 (for short “the NI Act”) for the last nearly two years.

      BRIEF FACTS:
3.    The appellant, on 08.04.2022, filed a complaint under Section 138
      of the NI Act, against the respondents. The complaint averred that
      the respondents had purchased Desi Ghee (milk products) and that
      cheques issued by them numbering three and totaling to an amount
      of Rupees Fourteen Lakhs had been dishonored. Summons was
      issued to the respondents and at the stage when the complainant
      was yet to be cross-examined, an amendment application to amend
      the complaint was moved by the appellant. The appellant contended
      that due to a typographical mistake it had been pleaded that the
      respondents had been purchasing Desi Ghee (milk products) while
      it should have been that the respondents were purchasing “milk”.
      The respondents vehemently objected to the amendment. It was
      contended that no amendment was permissible after cognizance is
      taken and that the amendment sought, changed the nature of the
      complaint.
4.    By order dated 02.09.2023, the Trial Court held that since the
      complainant was yet to be cross-examined, no prejudice would
      be caused to the accused/respondents. It was also held that the
      amendment was in the nature of a typographical error, moved at an
      initial stage of the case. So holding the amendment was allowed.
5.    The respondents challenged the order under Section 482 of Code
      of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’). It was additionally
      contended that the amendment was not a typographical error since
      even in the legal notice that preceded the filing of the complaint,
      what was mentioned was “Desi Ghee (milk products)”. It was further
1634                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


      argued that the amendment is an attempt to avoid liability under the
      Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short the ‘GST’).
6.    By virtue of the impugned order, the High Court has allowed the
      petition, holding that the amendment sought was not in the nature of
      a typographical error, but it had a wider impact upon the entire matter
      in dispute and, therefore, it changed the nature of the complaint. The
      High Court also found merit in the contention of the respondents
      that the amendment was sought, as no GST was leviable on milk.

      CONTENTIONS:
7.    We have heard Mr. Chritarth Palli, learned Counsel for the appellant
      and Mr. Aabhas Kshetarpal, learned Counsel for the respondents.
      We have also perused the records. Learned Counsels reiterated the
      stand of the respective parties in the courts below.
8.    The issue, whether a criminal court has power to order amendment
      of a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., is no longer
      res integra. In S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram1, this Court
      held as under:-
             “19. What is discernible from U.P. Pollution Control Board
             case is that an easily curable legal infirmity could be cured
             by means of a formal application for amendment. If the
             amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity
             which is curable by means of a formal amendment and by
             allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be caused
             to the other side, notwithstanding the fact that there is
             no enabling provision in the Code for entertaining such
             amendment, the court may permit such an amendment to
             be made. On the contrary, if the amendment sought to be
             made in the complaint does not relate either to a curable
             infirmity or the same cannot be corrected by a formal
             amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the
             other side, then the court shall not allow such amendment
             in the complaint.”
9.    The learned counsel for the respondents sought to distinguish the
      judgement in S.R. Sukumar’s case (supra) by contending that in the


1    (2015) 9 SCC 609
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                              1635

    Bansal Milk Chilling Centre v. Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & Anr.


     said case amendment was sought and allowed at the pre-cognizance
     stage and as such the said case can have no application here. We
     are unable to countenance the said submission.
10. A careful reading of the judgment in S.R. Sukumar’s case (supra)
    reveals that the said judgment followed the earlier judgment of this
    Court in U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Modi Distillery and
    Others2. In Modi Distillery (supra), after the process was issued to
    the respondents therein, a revision was filed by few of the accused
    and a Section 482 petition was filed by few other accused. Invoking
    the revisional jurisdiction, the High Court quashed the proceedings
    holding that vicarious liability could not be saddled on the Directors
    unless “Modi Industries Limited” was arrayed as accused. The
    Complainant in that case had arrayed “Modi Distillery”, an industrial
    unit and averred that Modi Distillery was a Company. The High
    Court focusing on the technical flaw in the complaint quashed the
    proceedings on the premise that “Modi Industries Limited” was not
    made an accused. This Court, while allowing the appeal of the
    Complainant-U.P. Pollution Control Board, held as follows:-
            “6. ……The learned Single Judge has focussed his
            attention only on the technical flaw in the complaint and
            has failed to comprehend that the flaw had occurred due
            to the recalcitrant attitude of Modi Distillery and furthermore
            the infirmity is one which could be easily removed by
            having the matter remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate
            with a direction to call upon the appellant to make the
            formal amendments to the averments contained in para
            2 of the complaint so as to make the controlling company
            of the industrial unit figure as the concerned accused in
            the complaint. All that has to be done is the making of
            a formal application for amendment by the appellant for
            leave to amend by substituting the name of Modi Industries
            Limited, the company owning the industrial unit, in place
            of Modi Distillery. Although as a pure proposition of law in
            the abstract the learned Single Judge’s view that there can
            be no vicarious liability of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman,
            Managing Director and members of the Board of Directors


2   (1987) 3 SCC 684
1636                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 47 of the Act unless
          there was a prosecution against Modi Industries Limited,
          the company owning the industrial unit, can be termed as
          correct, the objection raised by the petitioners before the
          High Court ought to have been viewed not in isolation but
          in the conspectus of facts and events and not in vacuum.
          We have already pointed out that the technical flaw in the
          complaint is attributable to the failure of the industrial unit
          to furnish the requisite information called for by the Board.
          Furthermore, the legal infirmity is of such a nature which
          could be easily cured. Another circumstance which brings
          out the narrow perspective of the learned Single Judge
          is his failure to appreciate the fact that the averment in
          para 2 has to be construed in the light of the averments
          contained in paras 17, 18 and 19 which are to the effect
          that the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director and
          members of the Board of Directors were also liable for the
          alleged offence committed by the Company.”
     Further, it was held
          “7. ..….It would be a travesty of justice if the big business
          house of Modi Industries Limited is allowed to defeat
          the prosecution launched and avoid facing the trial on
          a technical flaw which is not incurable for their alleged
          deliberate and wilful breach of the provisions contained
          in Sections 25(1) and 26 made punishable under Section
          44 read with Section 47 of the Act.”
                                                  (Emphasis supplied)

     This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High
     Court and restored the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate directing
     issue of process and directed that the trial be proceeded expeditiously.
     What is significant to notice is that Modi Distillery (supra) was a
     case where cognizance was taken at a stage when the accused
     approached the High Court and it was then that this Court observed
     that a formal application for amendment for substituting the name
     would have cured the defect.
11. Reverting back to S.R. Sukumar (supra), it does not follow from the
    judgment that post-cognizance, no amendment can be allowed. In
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                             1637

    Bansal Milk Chilling Centre v. Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & Anr.


     fact, a reading of the penultimate paragraph of the judgment clearly
     brings out the fact that four distinct reasons were given: -
            “20. In the instant case, the amendment application was
            filed on 24-5-2007 to carry out the amendment by adding
            Paras 11(a) and 11(b). Though, the proposed amendment
            was not a formal amendment, but a substantial one, the
            Magistrate allowed the amendment application mainly on
            the ground that no cognizance was taken of the complaint
            before the disposal of amendment application. Firstly, the
            Magistrate was yet to apply the judicial mind to the contents
            of the complaint and had not taken cognizance of the
            matter. Secondly, since summons was yet to be ordered
            to be issued to the accused, no prejudice would be caused
            to the accused. Thirdly, the amendment did not change the
            original nature of the complaint being one for defamation.
            Fourthly, the publication of poem Khalnayakaru being in
            the nature of subsequent event created a new cause of
            action in favour of the respondent which could have been
            prosecuted by the respondent by filing a separate complaint
            and therefore, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the trial
            court allowed the amendment application. Considering
            these factors which weighed in the mind of the courts below,
            in our view, the High Court rightly declined to interfere with
            the order passed by the Magistrate allowing the amendment
            application and the impugned order does not suffer from
            any serious infirmity warranting interference in exercise of
            jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.”
                                                   (Emphasis supplied)

     Hence, it is fallacious to contend that in no circumstance can
     amendments to complaints be allowed after cognizance is taken.
12. Similarly, in Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji vs.
    Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and Another3, it was held that even
    in criminal cases governed by the Code, Court is not powerless
    and may allow amendments in appropriate cases. The Court in
    Kunapareddy (supra) followed the holding in S.R. Sukumar (supra).


3   (2016) 11 SCC 774
1638                                                        [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


13. In Munish Kumar Gupta vs. Mittal Trading Company,4 while
    disallowing an amendment seeking alteration in the date of the cheque
    from 22.07.2010 to 22.07.2012, this Court, in para 9, held as under:-
            “9. In a matter of the present nature, where the date is a
            relevant aspect based on which the entire aspect relating
            to the issue of notice within the time frame as provided
            under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and also as
            to whether as on the date there was sufficient balance
            in the account of the issuer of the cheque would be the
            question, the amendment, as sought for, in the present
            circumstance, was not justified.”
     That judgment is entirely distinguishable as the amendment sought
     had a bearing on the time frame for issuance of notice of demand and
     on the aspect of existence of balance in the account. Further, as is
     clear from the facts, that amendment was sought after a long delay.
14. The term “complaint” is defined in Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal
    Procedure, 1973 [Section 2(1)(h) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
    Sanhita, 2023] which reads as follows:-
            “2 (d) “complaint” means any allegation made orally or
            in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action
            under this Code, that some person, whether known or
            unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include
            a police report.”
     As would be seen ordinarily, a complaint could even be oral. However,
     dealing with a case under Section 138 of the NI Act, we must notice
     that Section 142 of the NI Act states that to take cognizance of
     any offence punishable under Section 138, a written complaint is
     mandatory. Unless expressly prescribed, if to set a criminal case in
     motion ordinarily an oral complaint would be sufficient, any question
     about amendment of a written complaint should be considered by
     giving the widest latitude. However, as was rightly pointed out in S.R.
     Sukumar (supra), it should be ensured that no prejudice should be
     caused to the accused.



4   2024 SCC OnLine 1732
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                                1639

    Bansal Milk Chilling Centre v. Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & Anr.


15. It will be appropriate to observe that amendments/alterations are not
    alien to the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 216 of the Cr.P.C.
    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. However, the section
    does throw some light in considering the issue of amendments.
16. Section 216 and 217 of Cr.P.C [Section 239 and 240 of the Bharatiya
    Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] read as follows:-
           “216. Court may alter charge.-
           (1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time
           before judgment is pronounced.
           (2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and
           explained to the accused.
           (3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that
           proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the
           opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his
           defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the
           Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition
           has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or
           added charge had been the original charge.
           (4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding
           immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court,
           to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid,
           the Court may, either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial
           for such period as may be necessary.
           (5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge
           is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is
           necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such
           sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already
           obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on
           which the altered or added charge is founded.
                                                     (Emphasis supplied)

           217. Recall of witnesses when charge altered. -
           Whenever a charge is altered or added to by the Court
1640                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          after the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor and
          the accused shall be allowed –
          (a) to recall or re-summon, and examine with reference to
          such alteration or addition, any witness who may have been
          examined, unless the court, for reasons to be recorded
          in writing, considers that the prosecutor or the accused,
          as the case may be, desires to recall or re-examine such
          witness for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating
          the ends of justice;
          (b) also to call any further witness whom the Court may
          think to be material.”
     It will be noticed that when a charge is altered, if there is no prejudice
     to the accused, the trial can be proceeded with. Further, if it is likely
     to prejudice, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the
     trial to such period. Section 217 of the Cr.P.C. 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.
17. We have carefully perused the complaint and the application for
    amendment. The amendment was moved at a stage when after
    summons being issued to the respondents, the chief examination
    of the complainant had concluded and when cross-examination was
    awaited. The amendment made is also only with regard to the products
    supplied. According to the complainant, while what was supplied
    was “milk”, by an inadvertent error “Desi Ghee (milk products)” was
    mentioned. The error which occurred in the legal notice was carried
    in the complaint also.
18. On the facts of the present case and considering the stage of the
    trial, we find that absolutely no prejudice would be caused to the
    accused/respondents. The actual facts will have to be thrashed
    out at the trial. As to what impact the amendment will have on the
    existence of debt or other liability is for the Trial Court to decide
    based on the evidence. It was a curable irregularity which the
    Trial Court rightly addressed by allowing the amendment. It could
    not be said that by allowing the amendment at a stage when the
    evidence of the complainant was incomplete, failure of justice would
    occasion.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                      1641

    Bansal Milk Chilling Centre v. Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & Anr.


19. The High Court completely mis-directed itself in delving into the
    aspects of leviability of GST which would be the concern of the
    appropriate authorities under the relevant statute. It could also not
    be said that the amendment altered the nature and character of the
    complaint.
20. For the reasons aforestated, the appeal is allowed. The judgment
    and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
    CRM-M No. 53932 of 2023 (O&M) is set aside and that of the Trial
    Court dated 02.09.2023 is restored. The Trial Court shall proceed
    expeditiously and the parties will be at liberty to apply for recall of
    witnesses already examined.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey