1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 124 OF 2011 (Pradeep Ramsingh Gaharwal .v. State of Maharashtra) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S.S. Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.M. Deshpande, APP for the respondent/State. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 17TH OCTOBER, 2011. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent/State. By the present application, the applicant it taking exception and challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on 19.08.2011. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present application are as under :- A report came to be lodged on 18.09.2003 against the applicant-original accused at Chandur Railway Police Station. The sub and substance of the report is that the applicant was discharging his duties as Junior Engineer and was incharge of the construction at Neknathpur. Under one Government Scheme, the Gram Panchayat had to construct 16 latrines and the applicant was supervising the said work. The complainant who is B.E. (Civil Engineer) and under the scheme of Educated Unemployed Engineer, was registered as Government Contractor in the year 2002. The complainant approached the applicant-accused for completion certificate of 16 latrines constructed by him under the said government scheme. The applicant-accused demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- for issuing the completion certificate. As the complainant was not ready to give the said amount demanded by the applicant-accused, he approached the Anti Corruption Department. A trap was arranged and the amount of Rs.2,000/- was accepted by the applicant-accused. The necessary 2 panchanamas of the pre-trap and post trap were drawn. In view of the report, FIR No. 3051 was registered against the applicant- accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7(13), 1(9), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An application came to be filed on 12.08.2011 by the prosecution under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for correction of the contents of the charge framed against the applicant-accused. It was submitted in the application that the applicant-accused demanded and accepted a bribe of amount of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant Chandrajeet Rumale. But, a typographical mistake occurred and in stead of Rs,2,000/-, inadvertently, Rs.5,000/- was typed. It is also stated in the application that it was bona fide typographical mistake and a prayer was made to rectify the said mistake i.e. typing Rs.5,000/- in stead of Rs.2,000/- and correct the same as Rs.2,000/- in the draft of the charge. The application was opposed by the applicant-accused on the ground that the trial is pending, much time has been lapsed and if the application is allowed, it would cause prejudice to the applicant-accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by considering the record, observed thus :- “I have considered the submissions above referred of the learned A.P.P. and the learned advocate for the accused. In the complaint Exh.46 lodged by Chandrajeet Rumale the allegations are that the accused demanded Rs.2,000/- and then accepted that amount as illegal gratification. So also even in the oral evidence same thing is referred to. The perusal of the cross-examination of the complainant and other witnesses would show that the cross- examination is also on the line of demand and acceptance of Rs.2,000/- allegedly by the accused. In view of this, it appears that figure “Rs.5,000/-” in the charge is wrongly mentioned. It should have been Rs. 2,000/-. In case if the correction is made no serious prejudice would be, therefore, caused to the accused. The application, therefore, deserves to be allowed.” Shri S.S. Patil, the learned Counsel for the applicant strongly submits that the impugned order deserves to be interfered at the hands of this Court. 3 Per contra, Shri A.M. Deshpande, the learned APP supports the impugned. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent/State, I have gone through the record. Perusal of the FIR itself shows that it is only at the initial stage where gist is recorded, Rs.5,000/- is mentioned; whereas everywhere an amount of Rs.2,000/- is mentioned i.e. the amount which is demanded by the applicant-accused. The report also concludes with the specific mention that the applicant-accused for issuing the completion certificate demanded an amount of Rs. 2,000/- and accepted the same. It is also not in dispute that it was a typographical mistake occurred only referring to the gist at the initial stage; whereas in the report subsequently everywhere an amount of Rs.2,000/- is mentioned. The learned Sessions Judge has not committed any error while considering the record and giving the reasons for allowing the application and more particularly para 7 of the said order. The application is devoid of merits and deserves to be rejected. In the result, the revision application is rejected. JUDGE *rrg.