Skip to content


Pooran S/O Pothiram Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1980WLN662
AppellantPooran S/O Pothiram
RespondentState of Rajasthan
Cases ReferredIn Emperor v. Chintamoni
Excerpt:
.....482--inherent powers--typographical error in judgment--held, it can be corrected in exercise of inherent powers of court.;the stenographer while typing the judgement by a slip typed a.i.r. 1956 s.c. 400 instead of a.i.r. 1930 calcutta 379 against the words 'emperor v. chintamoni. the aforesaid typographical error can be corrected by this court in exercise of its inherent powers. such a correction is not prohibited by any provision of law under the code of criminal procedure.;order accordingly - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on..........vide this court's order dated may 29, 1978.2. a typographical error crept in, at page 16, of the typed copy of the judgment. in the judgment reliance was placed on emperor v. chintamoni. the stenographer while typing the judgment by a slip typed : 1956crilj790 instead of a.i.r. 1930 calcutta 379 against the word 'emperor v. chintamoni. the aforesaid typographical error can be corrected by this court in exercise of its inherent powers. such a correction is not prohibited by any provision of law under the code of criminal procedure.3. i, therefore, in exercise of inherent powers of this court correct the above noted mistake and order that at page 16 of the typed copy of the judgment following words will be read in emperor v. chintamoni a.i.r. 1930 calcutta 379 instead of the word in.....
Judgment:
ORDER

M.L. Shirmal, J.

1. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 1973 filed by the accused was decided by me and Hon'ble late Mr. Justice R.L. Gupta. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant was maintained and the appeal was dismissed vide this court's order dated May 29, 1978.

2. A typographical error crept in, at page 16, of the typed copy of the judgment. In the judgment reliance was placed on Emperor v. Chintamoni. The stenographer while typing the judgment by a slip typed : 1956CriLJ790 instead of A.I.R. 1930 Calcutta 379 against the word 'Emperor v. Chintamoni. The aforesaid typographical error can be corrected by this court in exercise of its inherent powers. Such a correction is not prohibited by any provision of law under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. I, therefore, in exercise of inherent powers of this court correct the above noted mistake and order that at page 16 of the typed copy of the judgment following words will be read In Emperor v. Chintamoni A.I.R. 1930 Calcutta 379 instead of the word In Emperor v. Chintamoni : 1956CriLJ790 .

4. A corrigendum to the same effect may be issued to all the parties to whom the copy of the judgment has already been issued.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //