BANSAL MILK CHILLING CENTRE V. RANA MILK FOOD PRIVATE LTD. & ANR 2025 INSC 899:

DATE: 25/07/2025

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K. V. Viswanathan

FACTS:

The appellant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) against the respondents, alleging that the respondents had purchased Desi Ghee (milk products) from the appellant, and that the cheques issued by the respondents towards the payment for the said goods, amounting to a total of Rs 14 lakh had been dishonoured. Consequently, summons was issued to the respondents. At a stage when the complainant was yet to be cross-examined, the appellant moved an application seeking to amend the complaint.

The appellant submitted that there was a typographical error in the original complaint, where it had been stated that the respondents were purchasing Desi Ghee (milk products). According to the appellant, this was incorrect, and what should have been stated was that the respondents had been purchasing “milk.” The respondents, however, opposed the amendment, arguing that once cognisance of the complaint had been taken, no amendment was legally permissible. They further contended that the nature of the complaint would be fundamentally altered if the amendment was allowed.

Despite these objections, the Trial Court permitted the amendment to the complaint. The respondents challenged this order, contending that the amendment was not merely a correction of a typographical error but an attempt by the appellant to avoid potential liability under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST). They argued that the change from “Desi Ghee” to “milk” altered the nature of the transaction in a way that could have legal and tax implications.

The High Court, upon considering the challenge, allowed the respondents' petition and set aside the order of the Trial Court permitting the amendment. It was under these circumstances that the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court, seeking redress against the High Court’s decision.

ISSUES:

The primary issue in this case was whether a criminal court has the power to allow an amendment to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), once cognizance has already been taken. Specifically, the appellant sought to amend the complaint to correct an alleged typographical error where the product was described as "Desi Ghee (milk products)" instead of "milk." The respondents argued that such an amendment was impermissible after cognizance, would change the nature of the complaint, and was a tactic to avoid Goods and Services Tax (GST) liability.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had disallowed the amendment. The Court restored the order of the Trial Court dated 02.09.2023, which had permitted the amendment. The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to proceed expeditiously with the matter and allowed the parties to apply for the recall of witnesses already examined.

The Supreme Court held that the power of a criminal court to allow an amendment to a complaint, even post-cognizance, is not barred as a matter of law. Citing precedents such as S.R. Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram and U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery, the Court clarified that curable legal infirmities, particularly those which do not cause prejudice to the accused can be rectified through formal amendments, even after cognizance is taken. The Court also referred to Kunapareddy v. Swarna Kumari, which reinforced that amendments are not alien to criminal procedure and may be permitted in appropriate cases.

In this case, the amendment was sought at a stage where only the complainant’s chief examination was complete, and cross-examination was pending. The change related only to the nature of the product supplied and did not alter the substance or character of the offence alleged under Section 138. The Court noted that the alleged error in describing the product (“Desi Ghee” instead of “milk”) was carried over from the legal notice and was inadvertent. Since the amendment did not prejudice the accused, the Trial Court rightly permitted it.

The Court also criticized the High Court for delving into the potential implications under the GST Act, which was irrelevant to the proceedings under the NI Act. It reiterated that assessing GST liability falls within the domain of the appropriate authorities under the relevant tax statute and has no bearing on the merits of a cheque dishonour complaint. The Supreme Court thus concluded that the amendment merely corrected a curable irregularity and that the accused's right to a fair trial was not infringed.

ANALYSIS:

This case underscores the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of the principle that criminal courts possess the discretion to permit amendments to complaints, even after cognizance has been taken, provided that such amendments do not result in prejudice to the accused. By referring to a consistent line of precedents, including S.R. Sukumar, U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery, and Kunapareddy v. Swarna Kumari, the Court clarified that procedural flexibility can be exercised to cure formal or typographical errors, especially when the amendment does not change the fundamental nature of the complaint or impact the accused's ability to defend themselves. In this instance, the correction from "Desi Ghee" to "milk" was a minor factual clarification that did not affect the substance of the Section 138 NI Act offence, and thus was rightly allowed by the Trial Court.

The judgment also draws a clear boundary between substantive criminal proceedings under the NI Act and collateral concerns such as taxation. The Supreme Court took strong exception to the High Court's focus on potential GST implications, noting that such issues fall outside the purview of cheque dishonour litigation and should be handled by the appropriate tax authorities. By restoring the Trial Court’s decision and emphasizing that no prejudice was caused by the amendment, the Court upheld the procedural integrity of criminal trials while preventing technicalities from thwarting justice. This ruling thus strikes a balance between legal formality and practical fairness, reinforcing the need to approach procedural matters with a view to substantive justice.