ROHIT AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At inception of argument, the learned A.G.A. has raised preliminary objection that learned counel for the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit dtd. 8/8/2023 thereby seeking the permission of this Court, for correction in the affidavit, which has been filed in support of the instant application.

(2.) He submits that Chapter IV Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 1952') provides that 'no interlineation, alteration or erasures shall be made in an affidavit after it has been sworn'. He added that there is a specific bar for any correction, alteration, etc in all affidavits filed before this Court and, therefore, it is not open for any of the applicant or petitioner or the person who has sworn in the affidavit, to subsequently ask for any change, in the affidavit and, therefore, submission is that the applicant may not be permitted to correct the affidavit and, therefore, the instant application may be dismissed on this ground alone.

(3.) Replying the aforesaid objections, the counsel for the applicant submits that the provisions of oath or affirmation by a deponent, has been prescribed under Chapter IV Rule 17 of Rules 1952 which speaks in consonance with the provisions of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, which was later on repealed and the Oaths Act, 1969 was promulgated. He submits that Sec. 297 of Cr.P.C. says about the authorities before whom, the affidavits, may be sworn. Sec. 297 of Cr.P.C. are quoted hereinunder:-