1 cri.appln.329.2009 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 329 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2009 Rajan Alimchandani ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Nitin Pradhan, Sr. Counsel i/by Ms. S.D. Khot and Ameeta Kuttikrishna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajan Alimchandani, applicant in person in Application No. 329 of 2009 Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : DECEMBER 20, 2010 P.C. 1) This application is filed by respondent no. 2 alleging that petitioner no. 5 has committed offence of purjury by "making false affirmation on solemn oath of stating false name in the said letters submitted in "F" Colly on pages 141 and 142-146". The applicant prays that the inquiry be held into the offence of perjury and 2 cri.appln.329.2009 suitable action be initiated against petitioner no. 5. The petitioner no. 5 has filed his reply to oppose the application. Pages at 141 and 142 are two annexures to the petition being Exh. Y and Exh. Z respectively. These are copies of the letters dated 3.4.2008 and 1.4.2008 sent by respondent no. 2 to Mr. Kodikar, Manager, Venus Cooperative Hsg. Society, Dr. R.G. Thadani Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 018. The subject of the letter dated 3.4.2008 is repairing work to flat no. 31 in the building. The respondent no. 2 alleges that the original letter sent by him to the Manager of the Society correctly describe the owner of flat no. 31 as one Mr. Morarka whereas copy annexed to the petition at Exh. Y gives name of the owner of flat no. 31 as one Shri. Makhijani. Similar mistake is seen in the letter at Exh. Z. The respondent no. 2 alleges that the change in the name has been deliberately made by the petitioner no. 5 in order to show respondent no. 2 in bad colours. He submits that Mr.Makhijani died several years back and reference to him in the letters is with the intention of showing that respondent no. 2 has been making false allegations against a dead persons despite the knowledge of person having died long back. 3) The petitioners have filed their affidavit in reply stating that 3 cri.appln.329.2009 reference to Mr. Makhijani at Exh. Y and Z has been occurred due to typing error. In the affidavit in reply it is stated that some of the papers including pages 141 to 146 were given for typing outside the office by the petitioner's lawyers. Since the volume of the annexures was quite large; at the time of filing of the petition, the lawyer did not check each and every page and hence, typing error remained uncorrected. It is also contended that these documents are not even material documents and nothing really turns upon them. The contents of the two documents and the explanation offered for the error, makes it very clear that there was no intention whatsoever on the part of the petitioners to make any false statement before the court. This is obviously a typing error. Hence, the Criminal Application is dismissed. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)