SHYAMA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has been listed at the instance of the counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner points out following typographical error/omission in the order dated 4.3.2008 namely - (a) At page 2 in the fifth line from bottom, one word 'it ' should have been 'its '. (b) in page 3 in the last line in place of 'end ' 'and ' has been typed, (c) in page 4 in 8th line from the top in place of 'convince ', 'convience ' has been typed. (d) in the third line from bottom in the same page 'vitiate ' has been typed which should be 'get vitiated '. (e) in page 5 there has been omission of one line in paragraph 9, i.e., 'said issue of payment of additional compensation in ' (f) in the last paragraph of the same page 5 the word 'for ' has been left out, (g) in the same page 5 in fifth line and last line from the bottom, the expression 'within the ' and 'that ' has been wrongly typed, and (b) in the last page 'to ' and 'of harassment ' has been left out in the second line from top. Counsel for the Respondents also agree they are purely typographical error/ omission.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY these typographical errors/ omissions are directed to be corrected and the order would now read as follows: - "Heard learned counsel for the parties.