IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011/19TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4073 of 2005 ( ) --------------------------- CC.532/2004 of J.M.F.C.-I, PUNALUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED:: ---------------------- A.K. RAGHU, GOVT.CONTRACTOR, RAGHU NIVAS, AYKKARAKONAM, KAKKODE P.O. PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.KURIAKOSE PETER RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:: ---------------------------- V.G. ABRAHAM, S/O. GEEVARGHESE, VAZHETHIL HOUSE, EDAMON, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE BY ADV. SMT.P.V.PARVATHI BY ADV. SMT.REENA THOMAS BY ADV. SRI.L.RAM MOHAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 4073 of 2005 ( ) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15-6-2004 IN C C NO.532/2004 FILED BEFORE THE JFCM COURT - 1 PUNALUR ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29-4-2005 FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.5963/2005 IN CC NO.532/2004 DATED 7-7-2005 PASSED BY THE JFCM - I COURT, PUNALUR RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE SMM P.S.GOPINATHAN. J --------------------------------- CRMC No.4073 OF 2005 --------------------------------- Dated this the 10 th day of November , 2011 O R D E R Legality of Annexure A3 order issued by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class -1, Punalur in Crl.M.P No.5963/05 in CC No. 532/04 is under challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the accused. The respondent herein filed the complaint against the petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the complaint, copy of which is produced as Annexure A1,the name of the accused is shown as A.K.Raju instead of A.K.Raghu. On detecting the error, Annexure A2 petition with an affidavit was filed seeking an order to correct the name of the accused (the petitioner herein ) as A.K. Raghu instead of A.K.Raju. By the order impugned, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition and the respondent was permitted to correct the name of the accused as CRMC No.4073 OF 2005 2 A.K.Raghu. The learned Magistrate in delivering the impugned order followed the decision reported in P.M. Nayanan Vs. rufus Oliver 1994 (1 ) KLJ 811 . Going through the above decision, I find that in an identical case this Court has held that the learned Magistrate was within the jurisdiction to allow the complainant to rectify the clerical error by correcting the name of the accused. I find no reason to arrive at a divergent ruling. It is also pertinent to note that the notice under Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was also served upon the petitioner in his correct name. Therefore, it is evident that in the complaint the name of the accused was wrongly written by the clerk as A.K.Raju instead of A.K.Raghu. Apparently, it is a clerical error. The order impugned is only to correct that error. By correcting that error, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. No error was committed by the Magistrate in issuing Annexure A3 order so as to be rectified in exercise of the inherent powers CRMC No.4073 OF 2005 3 vested on this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is devoid of merits. In the result, this petition is dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE MM CRMC No.4073 OF 2005 4