It is extremely relevant to point out that while ruling on a significant legal point pertaining to the amendment of the criminal complaint, the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Bansal Milk Chilling Centre vs Rana Milk Food Private Ltd & Anr in Criminal Appeal of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15699 of 2024) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 899 that was pronounced as recently as on July 25, 2025 has minced absolutely just no words to hold indubitably that an amendment to a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be allowed even after the cognizance has been taken and evidence in the case is incomplete. To put it differently, the top court held that complaint can be amended post-cognizance if evidence is incomplete and no prejudice is caused, calling it a curable, not substantial error. We thus see that the Apex Court allowed an appeal that had been filed by the Bansal Milk Chilling Centre against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order which had set aside the Trial Court’s order permitting the appellant to amend its complaint.

It was pointed out clearly by the Apex Court that it is fallacious to contend that in no circumstance can amendments to complaints be allowed after cognizance is taken. It was also underscored by the top court that the test of ‘prejudice to the accused’ is the cardinal factor that needs to be borne in mind. Very rightly so!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr KV Viswanathan for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that:
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.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating very briefly on the facts of the case that:
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.”

As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 4 that:
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.”

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 5 that:
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 argued that the amendment is an attempt to avoid liability under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short the ‘GST’).”

As things stands, the Bench then points out in para 6 that:
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.”

Briefly stated, the Bench holds in para 10 that:
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.”

Quite significantly, the Bench points out in para 11 that:
Reverting back to S.R. Sukumar (supra), it does not follow from the judgment that post-cognizance, no amendment can be allowed. In 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.”

While supplementing what is afore-stated, the Bench then also points out aptly in para 12 that:
Similarly, in Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and Another (2016) 11 SCC 774 , 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).”

Tersely put, the Bench underscores in para 16 stating that:
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.”

Simply put, the Bench observes in para 17 that:
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.”

Most rationally and so also most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 18 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
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.”

Most forthrightly, the Bench points out in para 19 holding that:
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.”

Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by directing and also holding in para 20 that:
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.”

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut-250001, Uttar Pradesh