1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3574 OF 2009 Arvindbhai S/o.Aidanmal Jain APPLICANT VERSUS Ramesh S/o.Bansilal Shaha RESPONDENT Mr.B.S.Shinde, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 09/11/2009 PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant accused in SCC No. 2680/2003 before the 2nd Joint Judicial Magistrate F.C. has challenged the order dated 22/09/2009 by which two typographical errors pointed out by the deponent in his evidence para no.3 were corrected vide order below Exh.59 in the said case which was filed u/s. 138 of The N.I. Act. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. According to him, the procedure as laid down u/s. 278 of Cr.P.C. about the correction in the deposition recorded in the open court was not followed by the learned Magistrate, but the admission given in the cross examination of the witness was later on corrected as per the 2 order passed vide Exh.59 dated 22/09/2009. In this light, read the original deposition of the witness at Exh.20. The application filed for the correction in the evidence in para no.3 which is at Exh.59 of the Lower Court, at paper book page no.25 and the say filed by the present applicant is at page no.27 of the paper book. The reasoning given by the learned Trial Court about the correction in the deposition is two fold. First on correct reading of the evidence which is recorded in para no.3 nullify the submissions of the applicant and against the earlier deposition recorded in line no.3 of para no.3 of the cross examination of the deponent indicates that if that “not” word is not recorded in line no.3 of the cross examination in para no.3, then there will not be a suggestion that this fact is not found recorded in the notice issued by the complainant. So far as the second correction about the word typed as “advocate” instead of “advance”, there is no objection. Considering the deposition recorded in para no.3 of the cross examination of the witness, and the reasoning given about the correction by the Trial Court can not be faulted with. 3. During the course of submissions, it was also urged that after the evidence of the deponent was recorded, it is readover and admitted to be correct by the witness concerned, and thereafter the learned Trial Magistrate has put her signature on that deposition. The provision is not only made u/s. 278 of The Cr.P.C., but also in the manual as to how to record the evidence. After the evidence/deposition of the witness is recorded, there should be an endorsement on the part of the Judicial Magistrate, who has 3 recorded that statement as “Read over to the witness which he admitted to be true and correct.” and only after this endorsement, it can be safely presumed that evidence recorded is read over to the witness which he admitted to be true and correct and otherwise not. In the instant case, the ground is made out by the advocate for applicant that the copy of the deposition recorded was later on handed over to the deponent and after going through the contents of that deposition, he realized the typographical errors which he pointed out and which were corrected on filing an application before the Trial Court on which the order of correction was passed by the learned Trial Judge, by her reasoned order. On reading the order, this court do not find any fault with the order passed by the Trial Court. The application sans any merit, hence dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/NOV 2009/cri.appl.3574-09