(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.70 OF 2004 Shri.Guruprite Singh Bedi ] Age Adult, Occ: Business ] R/o R-72, Gr.Floor ] Sardar Nagar No.4, ] Bldg.No.5, Sion, Koliwada ] Mumbai. ]..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ...Respondents .... Mr.C.K.Pendse, Advocate for Applicant Mr.A.S.Shitole,, A.P.P. for the State .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 9,2004 DATE : SEPTEMBER 9,2004 DATE : SEPTEMBER 9,2004 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This writ petition was disposed of by order dated 19th March, 2004. By the said order, the vehicle in question was ordered to be returned to the petitioner on certain conditions. The learned (-2-) advocate for the petitioner states that through inadvertence in the prayer clause Maruti ‘Gypsy’ has been stated instead of Maruti ‘800’. He seeks leave to amend the said prayer clause. Leave to amend the said prayer clause is granted. 3. It is further pointed out that in the order dated 19th March, 2004 the vehicle in question bearing No.MFF 6955 is described as Maruti ‘Gypsy’ instead of Maruti ‘800’, and it is prayed that the same may also be corrected. The learned advocate for the petitioner has produced the copy of panchnama and the papers relating to the vehicle in question which show that the vehicle is Maruti ‘800’ and not Maruti ‘Gypsy’. The learned A.P.P. has no objection to the said correction. Thus, the first two lines in second para in the order dated 19th March, 2004 which read "A vehicle i.e. Maruti Gypsy of the petitioner bearing No.MFF 6955 came to be seized in C.R.’ shall be substituted by ‘A vehicle i.e. Maruti 800 of the petitioner bearing No.MFF 6955 came to be seized in C.R.’. The order dated 19th March, 2004 stands modified to the extent indicated above. (-3-) (V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J)