A L LAKSHMANAN Vs. K N PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 9271 of 2003 in C. C. No. 178 of 2003 on the file of Judicial magistrate No. 1, Coimbatore .

(2.) THE said petition was filed before the learned Judicial magistrate -1, Coimbatore for making corrections in the date of the promissory note as 2. 9. 2002 instead of 2. 9. 2000. THE learned Judicial Magistrate has allowed the said petition permitting the complainant to make necessary corrections in the complaint regarding the date of the promissory note as indicated above which necessitated the accused to prefer this revision.

(3.) THE Point: THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent relying on a decision reported in Sankaran Nath-v- Dr. Sachidananda Das (1969 cril. J. 575) contended that the Judicial Magistrate has got every power to make corrections subsequently in the order passed by him and it is corresponding to the exercise of power of the Civil Court under Section 151 of C. P. C. THE said facts of the ratio will not be applicable to the present facts of the case because an order passed under Section 144 of Cr. P. C. by the Additional District magistrate (Executive) Cuttack was challenged before the High Court of Orissa and under such circumstances, the High Court of Orissa has held that the executive Magistrate, while exercising his powers under Section 144 of Cr. P. C. , is competent to pass necessary correctional order under the power of revision. THE said ratio will not be applicable to the present facts of the case because herein the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate is under challenge and not the order passed by an Executive Magistrate.