NAND LAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner's name is the same which was there in the F.I.R. and in the charge-sheet, whereas, in the impugned order, the name has wrongly been recorded. In view of the submission, defect No. 9(iii) is hereby, ignored.

(2.) So far as defect No. 9(ii) is concerned, the same be removed in course of the day.

(3.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.