IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.955 of 2008 SAHDEO PRASAD Versus RAJ NANDAN YADAV & ORS ----------- 3 29/8/2008 This case has been listed under the heading ‘to be mentioned’ at the instance of the petitioner, who points out that from the tenor of the order as also from the facts of the case it would clear that the witness who was to be examined was to be Anchal Amin and not Anchal Adhikari, and therefore, last line of the order directing examination of Anchal Adhikari should have been Anchal Amin. In the opinion of this Court, counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct. This is only a typographical error and accordingly the order dated 3.7.2008 is modified to the extent that the expression ‘Anchal Adhikari’ will be read as Anchal Amin. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar