JUDGMENT :- The applicants/petitioners have moved this Court for quashing and setting aside judgment dated 22nd October, 2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Criminal Revision No.35 of 2008 and further to quash and set aside order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Yavatmal in Criminal Complaint No.2423 of2006 on 18th August and 28th August, 2007. 2. Respondent No.2 Arun Vinayak Wanzal is original complainant in Criminal Complaint No.2423 of2006Jiled by him originally against respondent No.3 Ashok Thakare for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The original complaint was tiled on 8th June, 2006 alleging. inter alia, that respondent No.3 had been responsible for publication of defamatory news against respondent No.1. The statement of respondent No.2 on oath was recorded by the Magistrate on 4th August, 2006 and summons was issued against respondent No.2 on 7th September 2006. 3. Impugned order dated 18th August. 2007 came to be passed by the Magistrate on the application made by respondent No.3 for amendment of his complaint. Respondent No.3 on 13th August, 2007 had applied for amendment of the complaint and he had proposed to carryout extensive amendment in paragraph 9 of his complaint. The names of the petitioners have been added as accused in paragraph 9 and their roles in the alleged offence have been described in the said para. The learned Magistrate by his cryptic order, which runs as under, has granted the application : "Peruse the application and say. Heard both the sides. As in interest of justice proposed amendment in the complaint is necessary, application is allowed. Complainant to carry out the same and take further steps to proceed further till next date." 4. After passing of this impugned order, amendment appears to have been carried out and thereafter another impugned order dated 20th August, 2007 came to be passed, which runs as under : "As per order dated 18.08.07 at Exh.40, accused No.2 to 7 are added, as the complainant wants to proceed against them also. Hence considering all the material on record, perusing the amendment, issue process against all these accused No.2 to 7, on payment of process fees." 5. Hence considering all the material on record, perusing the amendment, issue process against all these accused No.2 to 7, on payment of process fees." 5. The applicants approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge by way of filing revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside order passed by the Magistrate directing addition of the applicants as accused in the original complaint. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took the view that though the application was titled as application for amendment, in fact, it was an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has said in his order that since the person who is not named as accused can be made accused if the material existed, the learned Magistrate was right in granting prayer of respondent No.3. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge can be reproduced as under : "10. It is true' that, there is no provisions to amend criminal complaint in the Cr.P.C. But there is n provision (Section 319 of Cr.P.C.) to implead additional accused. In this context it may not be out of place to refer to section 499 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 12 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. Conjoint reading of section 499 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 12 of Press and Registration of Books Act 1867 reveals that when slender is published the reporter, publisher and editor of the said daily news paper, they become necessary parties to the complaint under section 500 of Indian Penal Code. In view of above provisions it is therefore, appears that nomenclature used ("amendment application) is erroneous in the essence said application at Exh.40 was one under section 319 of Cr.P.C....." It can be seen that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken help of Sections 3 and 12 of the Press and Registration Books Act, 1867 to support the view taken by the learned Magistrate. 6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. F.T. Mirza on behalf of the petitioners, learned Advocate Mr. Kariya on behalf of respondent No.2, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Maldhure on behalf of respondent No.1/State and learned Advocate Mr. Anand Deshpande on behalf of respondent No.4. 6. Heard learned Advocate Mr. F.T. Mirza on behalf of the petitioners, learned Advocate Mr. Kariya on behalf of respondent No.2, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs. Maldhure on behalf of respondent No.1/State and learned Advocate Mr. Anand Deshpande on behalf of respondent No.4. It may be noted here that respondent No.4 is also one of the added accused but he has not challenged the impugned order. However, he supports the case of the petitioners. 7. The learned counsel Mr. Mirza has submitted that totally a novel method has been adopted by respondent No.3 by filing an amendment application. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has also passed order which is absolutely foreign to the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Mr. Mirza there is no provision in Cr.P.C. which permits amendment to the criminal complaint. The order therefore, is totally perverse and not sustainable. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of UP Pollution Control Board Vs. M/s. Modi Distillery, reported at AIR 1988 SC 1128 the amendment is permissible. I have gone through the said judgment. T t can be seen that there was some mistake in mentioning the name of the company. It appears that the name of the company was not properly described. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 6 as under : "......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 Messrs 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 paragraph 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 Messrs Modi Industries Limited, the Company owning the industrial unit, in place of Messrs Modi Distillery. .... The Hon’ble Court has further observed that : .... 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 Messrs Modi Industries Limited, the Company owning the industrial unit, in place of Messrs Modi Distillery. .... The Hon’ble Court has further observed that : .... Another circumstance which brings out the narrow perspective of the learned single Judge is his failure to appreciate the fact that the averment in paragraph 2 has to be construed in the light of the averments contained in paragraphs 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." 8. It is abundantly clear that the name of the company was wrongly stated as M/s. Modi Distillery. In fact, it should have been M/s. Modi Industries Limited. It is for this reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed to make a formal, application for amendment before the trial Magistrate. The ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not permit to change the substance of the complaint. In the present case by allowing the amendment to the complaint which has resulted in extensive amendment in paragraph 9 of the complaint, the learned Magistrate has permitted to change the nature of the complaint itself. 9. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the amendment does not in any way prejudice the petitioners. It was submitted that it has already been stated in the complaint that a defamatory news was published in Lokmat daily newspaper. In this regard it can be said that if respondent No.2 felt that his original complaint covered role of the petitioners, he was at liberty to move the learned trial Court for issuance of summons to persons who were not named as accused in the compliant against whom averments had already been made in the complaint. It was not permissible to make fresh averments by way of amendments and then pray for summons. In my considered view, the order of the learned Magistrate permitting amendment was illegal and law did not permit him to do so. It, therefore, follows that order dated 18th August, 2007 is not sustainable. Resultantly, order dated 28th August, 2007 of the Magistrate is also not sustainable, to. In my considered view, the order of the learned Magistrate permitting amendment was illegal and law did not permit him to do so. It, therefore, follows that order dated 18th August, 2007 is not sustainable. Resultantly, order dated 28th August, 2007 of the Magistrate is also not sustainable, to. As far as view expressed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is concerned, I have gone through the provisions of Sections 3 and 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act 1867. Those provisions are not applicable in the present set of facts. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also misdirected himself. The view expressed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the application of respondent No.2 was, in fact, an application under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is erroneous. 11. It may be noted here that there is presumption against editor of newspaper. If respondent No.2 wanted to take advantage of that presumption, he could have moved the Magistrate accordingly for issuing summons against the editor on the basis of the averments already made in the complaint. It is still open to the respondent No.2 and the Magistrate can pass appropriate order if the application is made by the respondent No.2. However, as already stated, the application for amendment and order of issuance of process after amendment is not sustainable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in fact, should have allowed the revision application. As such the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also not correct. 12. It is therefore obvious that by adopting totally a novel method which is foreign to the Code of Criminal Procedure, gross abuse of process of law has been committed which needs to be corrected by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the result, I pass the following order : 13. The application is allowed. The order passed by the learned Magistrate on 18th August, 2007 in Criminal Case No.2423 of 2006 allowing the amendment, order dated 28th August, 2007 issuing process against the petitioner and respondent No.4 and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in Revision Petition No.35 of 2008 are set aside. The complaint filed by respondent No.2 shall proceed further in its original form. The complaint filed by respondent No.2 shall proceed further in its original form. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to move the learned trial Magistrate for issuance of process against the persons not named in the proceedings and against whom the averments are found in the complaint. The said prayer shall be decided on merits by the learned Magistrate whenever it comes before it. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Application allowed.