:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 240 OF 2008 Prabhudas Gangaram Ranglani ..Petitioner Vs. Zulelal Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. and anr. ..Respondents Mr. Tushar Sonawane for petitioner. Mr. V.S. Tambat h/f Mr. Sagar Kasar for respondent no.1. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J. Date : November 17, 2008. Date : November 17, 2008. Date : November 17, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner - original accused, learned Advocate for the respondent no.1 - original complainant and the learned APP for the State. 2. The respondent no.1 had filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said case is numbered as S.C.C. No. 4785 of 2004 and it is pending before the learned JMFC, 5th Court, Nashik. :2: 3. In the complaint, number of the disputed cheque is mentioned as 006985. The complainant preferred an application before the trial court stating that the cheque number is 016985 and hence permission may be granted to him to correct the cheque number mentioned in the complaint from 006985 to 016985. Said permission came to be granted by the learned Magistrate by order dated 13/6/2007. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a Revision Application before the Sessions Court at Nashik. The said Revision Application came to be dismissed on 19/10/2007. Hence, this writ petition. 4. It is seen that there was only a typographical mistake in the complaint and the court has granted permission to correct the said typographical mistake. In the case of Bhim Singh vs. Kan Singh reported in ALL MR (Cri) Journal 70, it has been held that, "Negotiable Instruments Act (1881), S. 138 - Criminal P.C. (1973), S. 482 - Typographical mistakes in complaint - Application for correction of Mistake in the cheque number and in the date of information by Bank - Held trial court has inherent power to rectify mistakes to do justice between the parties." :3: . So also this court in the case of Balasaheb Pandharinath Borade vs. Abdulla Mohammad Bagwan reported in 2006(2) Bom. C.R. (Cri) 699 has allowed correction in the number of the cheque after observing that, there would be no change whatsoever except one digit appearing in number of cheque. Due to this accused would not be taken by surprise. So also in the decision in the case of Maan Agro Centre vs. E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited and anr. reported in 2005(1) Bom. C.R. (Cri) 699 this court held that the typographical mistakes which have been pointed out by the complainant petitioner should have been rectified by the trial court as trial court has inherent power to rectify such typographical mistakes to do justice between the parties. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the correction in the number of cheque could not have been granted by the learned Magistrate after all the evidence had been led and the case has been posted for final hearing. The learned Advocate for the petitioner states that in the notice, cheque number is mentioned as 006985. As far as the number :4: of the cheque in the notice is concerned, no correction can be made at any stage. As far as the aspect, whether correction can also be made in the affidavit filed by the complainant in relation to the number of the cheque, the said contention has already been rejected by the learned Magistrate, hence at this stage no prejudice is caused to petitioner. 6. In view of the above decisions, especially the decisions of this court mentioned above, no fault can be found with the order of the learned Magistrate allowing correction of the number of the cheque in the complaint. In view of the above decisions, no case is made out for interference. 7. Hence, the petition is rejected. 8. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for stay of the trial, as he wishes to challenge the present order before the Apex Court. In view of the prayer, stay of four weeks is granted to the trial. :5: (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.) (Smt.V.K. Tahilramani,J.)