Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the court to add a new accused in a pending trial or inquiry of an offence:
“319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.—(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then—
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.”
Bombay High Court in the case of Amol Shripal Sheth v. Hari Om Trading Co., (2014) 6 Mah LJ 222 (Bom) : (2013) 3 AIR Bom R 820 : 2013 Cri LJ (NOC 451) 163, had allowed amendment in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for making correction in the name of the accused person.
In view of the above, you may perhaps be able to add the name of the company as an accused. You may try filing the application before the court seeking permission to do so. However, you may face a bigger problem. Even if you are successful in adding the name of the company as an accused at this late stage, the question is – did you issue legal notice to the “company” within 30 days of the cheque being returned to you by the bank? Such legal notice is mandatory. If you had not issued such legal notice to the company, one of the mandatory conditions for making out the offence of cheque dishonour under Section 138 would not be satisfied and the offence against company may not be complete.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
