Summary and Analysis of Bansal Milk Chilling Centre Vs. Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & Anr.,(Criminal Appeal No. [ ] of 2025)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Bansal Milk Chilling Centre vs. Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & Anr.
(Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. [ ] of 2025)

2. Relevant Laws and Sections

• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
  Section 138: Penalizes dishonor of cheques due to insufficient funds.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  Section 200: Procedure for magistrate to examine complainant.
  Section 216: Magistrate’s power to alter charges during trial.
  Section 217: Recall of witnesses after charge alteration.
  Section 482: High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings.

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:
  Sections 239-240 (Equivalent to CrPC Sections 216-217).

3. Basic Case Details

• Parties:
  Appellant: Bansal Milk Chilling Centre (supplier of goods).
  Respondents: Rana Milk Food Pvt. Ltd. (purchaser) & its director.

• Dispute:
  Respondents issued 3 cheques (₹14 lakhs) for payment of goods described as "Desi Ghee (milk products)" in the complaint.
  Cheques dishonored due to insufficient funds (April 2022).

• Legal Journey:
  Trial Court (02.09.2023): Allowed appellant’s amendment to correct "Desi Ghee (milk products)" to "milk" (typographical error).
  High Court: Quashed amendment, stating it "changed the nature of the complaint" and was linked to GST evasion.
  Supreme Court Appeal: Challenged High Court’s order.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Core Issue

"Can a complaint under Section 138 NI Act be amended after cognizance is taken, and if so, under what conditions?"

Court’s Analysis

1. Amendment Jurisprudence (Precedents):
   S.R. Sukumar vs. S. Sunaad Raghuram (2015):
   "Amendments allowed to cure curable infirmities if no prejudice to accused."
   U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Modi Distillery (1987):
   "Technical flaws in complaints can be amended to prevent travesty of justice."
   Kunapareddy vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari (2016):
   "Courts have power to allow amendments in criminal cases."

2. Key Findings:
   Nature of Amendment:
   Changing "Desi Ghee (milk products)" to "milk" was a typographical error (not altering complaint’s essence).
   No evidence of GST evasion intent; GST irrelevant to Section 138 proceedings.
   Stage of Trial:
   Amendment sought before cross-examination of complainant – no prejudice to respondents.
   Prejudice Test:
   "Amendment permissible if it doesn’t prejudice accused or change complaint’s core character."

3. High Court’s Error:
   Incorrectly held amendment "changed the complaint’s nature."
   Erroneously considered GST implications (outside NI Act scope).

Decision

• Appeal Allowed:
  High Court’s order set aside; Trial Court’s amendment order restored.

• Directions:
  "Trial Court to proceed expeditiously. Parties may seek witness recall if needed."

Legal Principles Reinforced

• Procedural Flexibility:
  "Procedure is a handmaiden of justice – technicalities must not defeat substantive rights."

• Amendment Test:
  "Amendments allowed if: (1) Curable infirmity, (2) No prejudice, (3) Early stage of trial."

Outcome

• Amendment Valid: Complaint corrected to reflect supply of "milk" (not Desi Ghee).

• Trial to Resume: Respondents to face trial for cheque dishonor.