TAX RECOVERY OFFICER Vs. PRATAPSINH R RAJPOOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing an order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari dated 13th May, 2013 below Application Exhibit 166 in Criminal Complaint no. 131 of 2006 (Old) Criminal Case No. 1948(A) of 2006 (New) and direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari to rectify the error as prayed in the said application.

(2.) The substance of this case are that there was an outstanding demand of Rs. 1,45,500/- against the respondent no.1 for the Assessment Years 1975- 76, 1981-82 and 1983-84 and as against the same, the respondent no.1 issued two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 95,000/-, out of which, cheque of Rs. 95,000/- when deposited, returned dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient funds" and in this connection, statutory notice came to be issued by the original complainant-applicant to the respondent no.1 followed by filing of Criminal Complaint no. 131 of 2006 (Old) Criminal Case No. 1948(A) of 2006 (New) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari. Thereafter, the documents produced at Exhibits 42, 87 and 88 which indicates the demand for which the cheque of Rs. 95,000/- was issued by the respondent no.1 pertaining to Assessment Years 1975-76, 1981-82 and 1982-83, as against that, the complaint states that the demand pertaining to Assessment Years 1975-76, 1981-82 and 1983-84. Therefore, reference to Assessment Year 1983-84 in the complaint was a bonafide mistake. In fact, instead of Assessment Year 1983-84, it should have been Assessment Year 1982-83. As soon as the applicant-original complainant realized that a typographical error or clerical mistake had occurred in the complaint and on that basis in the evidence/deposition given below Exhibit 104, an application below Exhibit 166 was filed praying for rectifying the mistake and for substituting year 1982-83 instead of Assessment Year 1983-84. The respondent no.1 opposed such application by filing a detailed reply. Ultimately, by an order dated 13.05.2013, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari rejected application Exhibit 166 and that is how, the applicant has filed the present application.

(3.) Heard learned advocate Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt appearing on behalf of the applicant/original complainant, learned advocate Mr. Abhishek M. Mehta appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 and learned APP Mr. KP Raval appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2-State.