Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Digambar Ganpat Korde, filed a Criminal Revision Application before the Bombay High Court challenging the judgment and order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana in Criminal Revision No.64/2006. The Sessions Judge had set aside the order of the trial Magistrate (below Exh.27) which allowed correction of a typographical error in the complaint. The case originated from Summary Criminal Case No.809/2005 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the complainant sought to correct a typographical mistake in the cheque number due to rubber stamp overlapping. The trial Magistrate allowed the amendment application (Exh.27) on 16.3.2006. The respondent/accused challenged this order before the Sessions Court, which entertained the revision and set aside the Magistrate's order. The applicant then approached the High Court. The main legal issue was whether a revision application is maintainable against an interlocutory order. The applicant argued that the order allowing correction was interlocutory and thus not revisable under Section 397(2) CrPC, relying on Balasaheb Borade vs. Abdulla Mohammad Bagwan, 2006 (2) Mh.L.J. 258. The High Court agreed, holding that the order allowing amendment to correct a typographical mistake is an interlocutory order and revision against it is not maintainable. The court allowed the revision application, set aside the Sessions Judge's order, and restored the trial Magistrate's order allowing the correction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Interlocutory Order - Section 397(2) CrPC - Revision against an order allowing correction of a typographical error in a complaint is not maintainable as it is an interlocutory order - The court held that the order allowing amendment to correct a typographical mistake in the cheque number is an interlocutory order and revision under Section 397 CrPC is barred (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a revision application is maintainable against an interlocutory order allowing correction of a typographical mistake in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dated 16.11.2007, and restored the order of the trial Magistrate dated 16.3.2006 allowing the correction of the typographical error.
Law Points
- Interlocutory order
- revision not maintainable
- typographical error correction
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Section 397 CrPC
