IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1770 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1770 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1770 OF 2007 Sudhir Chimanlal Dharia.... Petitioner versus M/s.Super Electrical and Insulating Co. & anr....... Respondent. Mr. M.D.Shah for the petitioner, Mr. J.P. Yagnik APP for State. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 13TH MARCH, 2008 DATED; 13TH MARCH, 2008 DATED; 13TH MARCH, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. The present petitioner is the original accused against whom a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is filed. The respondent complainant has instituted two cases, one against the petitioner and the other against his brother. He simulteneously filed affidavit in both the cases. However, due to mistake of the advocate, the cheque and the memo in the first case came to be filed in the other case, whereas the cheque and the memo of the other case, came to be filed in the first case. On noticing the said mistake, an application came to be moved by the complainant seeking to correct the mistake. The trial court being of the view that the client should not suffer on account of the mistake of the advocate, allowed the application and permitted the correction of the mistake, meaning thereby permitting filing of the cheque and the memo in the proper case. The said order was called in question by filing a revision before the Sessions Judge, and the Sessions Judge having rejected the revision, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Perused the order impugned. The same does not call for any interference. An inadvertant mistake has been allowed to be corrected. Hence writ petition is summarily rejected. ...