At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
For the Petitioner: Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Aladeen Khan, P.P.
2. The present petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur in Revision petition no.106/2015 whereby learned Revisional Court partly affirmed the order 07.04.2015 passed by learned Metropolita
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
Magistrate No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan in criminal complaint case No.1588/2012 to the extent of correction in criminal complaint but correction in affidavit was quashed and set aside.3. The brief facts of the case are that during pendency of criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, respondent-complainant filed an application for correction of bill number from 146 to 346 in criminal complaint as well as in affidavit. Learned trial court i.e. learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan allowed the application and it was ordered that in place of bill no.146, bill no.346 may be corrected by red ink that order was challenged by the petitioner in revision petition which was partly allowed vide order dated 14.08.2015 as aforementioned.4. Aggrieved from the order of revisional court dated 14.08.2015 petitioner-accused preferred this misc. petition before this court.5. Mr. Amin Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner accused submits that criminal court has no jurisdiction for accord the permission for amendment, learned counsel relied on the judgment of Single Bench of Bombay High Court passed in the matter of Madan v. Ashok Sonaji Hembade, 2014 (2) DCR 711 (Criminal Writ Petition No.382/2013) decided on 10.10.2013.6. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order.7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels. In the matter of Madan v. Ashok Sonaji Hembade (supra) Single Bench of Bombay High Court has observed that:-"The question of holding the mistake to be a typographical or arithmetical error would arise when a party would be able to point out, by confrontation with some other record, that what is reflected at one place could not have been intended to be stated and is actually due to inadvertence. Here, admittedly, there is no written record of dates of payment and/or the break-up of the amounts paid. It is not the case of the complainant that, the dates on which different amounts were paid, were reflected in some record, and that, while reproducing the dates based on that record, the error had cropped up. The mistake which is in the date and in the amount therefore cannot be construed as a clerical, typographical or arithmetical mistake. It is a mistake in making a statement of fact."8. From a bare perusal of above observations it is clear that when the mistake is not construe as a clerical same cannot be amended but in the case in hand complainant clearly stated and seems that 146 in place of 346 was typed and such type of minor clerical mistake can be corrected in the criminal court for imparting justice, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order.9. Consequently, the instant petition being devoid merits is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed.
"2016 (1) CRLR 39, 2016 (1) NIJ 647, 2015 (32) RCR(Cri) 832,"