IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16253 of 2008 1. BRAJ BHUSHAN SHARMA @ KARIMAN, SON OF SRI KRISHANA BHATT. 2. SRI KRISHANA BHATT @ SADHUJEE SON OF LATE SUVAKH BHATT. 3. UTTAM SHARMA, SON OF LATE VIVEK SHARMA 4. MOTI LAL @ MOTI LAL SINHA, SON OF LATE DWARIKA LAL, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-GAUDARH, POLICE STATION SHAHPUR, PRAGANA BIHIYA, DISTRICT BHOJPUR AT ARA. … PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. JANG BAHADUR SHARMA @ GHAR SHOHIT , SON OF LATE ANAND SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAUDARH, PRAGANA BIHIYA, POLICE STATION SHAHPUR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR, ARA, AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF MOHALLA 27 PATEL NAGAR POLICE STATION, MUGALSARAI, DISTRICT VARANASI, UTTAR PRADESH. …OPPOSITE PARRTIES ----------- 06. 02.08.2010 This has come at the instance of the petitioners. Mr. Atul Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that the present criminal miscellaneous application was preferred on behalf of four petitioners. The name of petitioner no.3 (Uttam Sharma, son of Late Vivek Sharma) is not reflected in the order dated 9.07.2010. It is next contended that due to inadvertence, it has been recorded in second paragraph of the order (at page 1) that Cr.Revision No.255/06 was dismissed. It is contended that in fact the said revision application was allowed. Accordingly, it is clarified that name of petitioner no.3 (Uttam Sharma, son of Late Vivek Sharma) shall appear at serial no.3 of the array of the petitioners, whereas Moti Lal @ Moti Lal Sinha shall be re-numbered as petitioner no.4. Similarly, in place of the ‘word’ - 2 - dismissed appearing in paragraph 2 at page 1 of the order, it shall be read as ‘allowed’. The order dated 09.07.2010 is modified to that extent. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )