THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 885 OF 2011 Date: 11-04-2011 Between: Challa Venkataratnam @ Rattaiah .. Petitioner And Challa Narendra Kumar @ Chava Narendra Kumar and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 885 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Ch.Ravindra Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Sri W.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel says that he is appearing for the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.23 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Guntur. The said case pertains to an offence punishable under Sections 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the complaint, the name of the complainant is mentioned as Challa Narendra Kumar. Therefore, the complainant filed a petition i.e. Crl.M.P.No.6593 of 2009 before the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Guntur for correction of his name as Chava Narendra Kumar on the plea that a typographical mistake has occurred in drafting the complaint. The learned Magistrate after hearing both sides by his order dated 21.09.2010 opined that the said mistake is a typographical mistake and in that view of the matter he allowed it. Questioning that order, the present Criminal Revision Case is now filed. It is seen that the petitioner could have filed this revision as well in the District Court, Guntur but he chose to file it here. The main plea of the accused/petitioner herein is that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the Criminal Rules of Practice for correction of a typographical error. He also pointed out that in the demand notice that was issued, the name of the complainant was shown as Challa Narendra Kumar and this itself shows that there is a dispute regarding the identity of the complainant also. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent i.e. the complainant pointed out that the promissory note dated 05.01.2007 has been executed by the accused in the name of the complainant describing him as Chava Narendra Kumar and the cheque in question was issued in favour of the complainant describing him as Ch.Narendra Kumar and that cheque was issued only for discharge of the debt covered by the promissory note. These are plus points for the complainant i.e. the 1st respondent herein. It may also be noted that the Tribunal or Court will have always the power to order correction of clerical or typographical mistakes. Having regard to the mention of the name of the complainant in the promissory note as Chava Narendra Kumar, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate was right in concluding that the mistake was a typographical mistake. In view of this, I do not see any reason to admit this Criminal Revision Case. Accordingly, this is dismissed at the admission stage. Parting with the matter, it is however made clear that the accused has got a grievance about the identity of the complainant, having regard to the promissory note and also the cheque issued, it is always open for him to raise that issue in the trial of the case. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ___________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 11-04-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 885 OF 2011 Date: 11-04-2011 MR