IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH ATBILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0. ^ / 2010 APPLICANT NON-APPLICANTS ^0...^ .<-^~v..>:<^:- ^•**\'>(*^»»"' ;.5?-"-"'c^^'^-' VERSUS :1. 2. ,^^fr Kishore Kumar Sharma, S/o Kushal Ram Sharma, Aged about 40 years, Occupation - Service Bhilai Steel Plant, Junidr Store Keeper, Bhilai Tahsil & Distt. Durg-(C.G.) Smt. Annapurna Sharma W/o Shri Kishore Kumar Sharma, Aged about 34 years, R/o MIG-1/592, Hudco Bhilai, Tahsil 8s, Distt. Durg-fC.G.) Master Aman Sharma S/o Kishore Kumar Sharma, Aged about one year minor through natural guardian mother Smt.Annapuma Sharma W/o Shri Kishore Kumar Sharma, R/o MIG-1/592, Hudco Bhilai, Tahsil Ss Distt. Durg-(C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. 1973 ./' L- HI6H (^H^ OI'CMHiVF'l'ESeWWATBII.ASPUft angle Bcnch : Hon'ble Mi". Justice Prltinter biwalw Cr.MPNo.39lof2010 APPLICANT Kishore Kumar Shcrma Varsus NON-APPUCANTS Smt. Annapurna Sharma ond another Shri Sunii Otwani, counsel for the appticant. PETTTION UNOER SECTICTM 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEE)l»E OR OER (L07.201CQ Head on admition. Challenge in the present petition is to the order doted 18.03.2010 possed by 2nd Additionat Judge, Famity Court, Durg in case No. 248/09 whereby the leomed court- below has rejected the appliccEtion as filed by the petittoner for correction in the court deposition of Kushal Ram Sharma. 2. It has been argued by the petitioner that few words in the Court deposition of KiBhal Ram Sharma were wrongly typed while recording his deposition ond therefore, an a|^)tication was filed by the petitioner for correction of the same. 3. I have perused the court- deposition of the said witness, the application as filed bythe petitioner, its repfy and the order impugned. 4. The corrections which have been sought by the petitioner cannot be permitted becouse if the same are nerrnitted jt wijt gjye different interpretation to the deposition of the said Kushat fero Sharma. Moreover, from the court- deposition of the witness Kushd Rffln Sharma, it appears thoEt- each and evwy page was signed by him and further certain corrections were atso made by the court before signing the same. Alt these cepects have been well considered by the court' betow while passing the impugned order. 5. I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned, the petion has no substonce and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itsetf. Pritinker Diwaker Judge