AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 220 wordsW. Diengdoh, J
Heard Mr. S.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has submitted that this Court vide common judgment and order dated 08.09.2025 passed in BA. No. 44, 45 & 46 of 2025 at para 6 of the same, has referred that the petitioners/accused persons are connected to “Sadar P.S. Case No. 80(03) of 2024”, when in fact, they are not at all involved in the said case, but are actually involved in “Nongpoh P.S. Case No. 25(03) of 2024”. Accordingly, this appears to be a typographical mistake committed, for which it is prayed that the same may be allowed to be corrected so as to set the records straight.
Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Mr. S.A. Sheikh and Mr. E.R. Chyne, learned GA for the State respondent has no objection to the prayer made on the ground that law permits such correction of clerical/ typographical or arithmetical mistakes.
In view of the submission made, this application is allowed. The contents at para 6 of the common judgment and order dated 08.09.2025 passed in BA. No. 44, 45 & 46 of 2025 is hereby corrected to the extent that the phrase “Sadar P.S. Case No. 80(03) of 2024” be replaced by “Nongpoh P.S. Case No. 25(03) of 2024”.
Misc. Case disposed of.