AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Bhangale, J.—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 Adhoc 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.
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 Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge2, 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 Bagwan, 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 Maan Agro Centre Vs. EID Parry (India) Ltd. and Another, . 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.
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 v. State of Maharashtra and Ashwini Honmane reported in 2008(2) Mh.J. 856, in order to contend that inherent powers u/s 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.
Coming back to the facts pleaded in the present case and bearing in mind the essential ingredients of offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if the cheque was dishonoured and returned for nonpayment in respect of which demand notice was sent and served and furthermore if the amount demanded remained unpaid despite opportunity availed of as a result of return of demand notices by the accused, the offence in such a case, is said to have been constituted. In such case mistake as to a figure in respect of the amount occurred in the case and brought to the notice of the trial Magistrate was allowed to be rectified or corrected. Under these circumstances, such order which was interlocutory in its nature, ought not to have been disturbed by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge. That being so, the Revision Application ought to be allowed. The learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge erred in setting aside the order of the trial Magistrate. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the earned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge 2 Buldana in Criminal Revision No.64/2006 is set aside and the order which was passed by the learned trial Magistrate was restored. The trial Magistrate shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the learned trial Magistrate on 21st March, 2011. Order accordingly.