DIGAMBAR GANPAT KORDE Vs. VINAYAKRAO ANANDRAO GAWANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant Revision Application, the applicant is challenging the validity, legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Buldana in Criminal Revision No.64/ 2006 on his file, whereby the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge - 2 Nagpur was pleased to set aside the order passed by the trial Magistrate (below Exh.27) whereby some typographical error crept in, was allowed to be corrected by allowing amendment application moved for that purpose. The order below Exh.27 in Summary Criminal Case No.809/2005 in respect of Exh.27 therein decided on 16.3.2006 was challenged by means of Criminal Revision No.64/2006 before the Sessions Court at Buldana.

(2.) Heard Mr. K. S. Narwade, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. G. S. Lahoti, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1. It is contended that the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Buldana ought not to have entertained the Revision since it was preferred against an interlocutory order by which the learned trial Magistrate had allowed correction of typographical mistake in the plaint. The learned Advocate in support of his submissions placed reliance upon the ruling in Balasaheb Borade Vs. Abdulla Mohammad Bagwan, 2006 2 MhLJ 258 to submit that in the facts of the case where it is seen that the complainant is seeking correction in the complaint, in respect of the cheque relied upon on record, the amendment in order to enable the complainant to correct a mistake which is typographical in nature. It is contended that in a complaint in respect of dishonour of cheque there was confusion in respect of cheque number due to rubber stamp overlapping on it, the correction was sought in respect of clarification as to cheque number and it was permitted by way of amendment in Balasaheb's case (supra). Reference is also made to Mann Agro Centre Vs. Eid Parry (I) Ltd. and another, 2005 2 MhLJ 44. Learned Advocate for the applicant contended that in an identical case in respect of dishonour of cheque, it was observed that typographical mistake should have been rectified by the trial Court as trial Court has inherent powers to rectify such typographical mistake to do justice to the parties.

(3.) Mr. G. S. Lahoti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1, placed reliance upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Abasaheb Honmane Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ashwini Honmane, 2008 2 MhLJ 856, in order to contend that inherent powers under section 482 can be exercised to secure the ends of justice to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Court, depending upon the facts of a given case.