hand loan was of Rs.10,00,000/-, mention of Rs.50,000/- as having been paid on 7.5.2005 must be a clerical or typographical mistake . It is impossible to accept the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On what basis the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that the mistake could be only in quoting the amount supposedly paid on 7.5.2005, or 7.5.2006 , and why the mistake could not have taken place while mentioning the other amounts said to have been given on other dates , is impossible to comprehend. The fact is that the total amount which the complainant claimed to have been given to the accused as per the details in paragraph no.2 of the complaint was Rs.9,50,000/-, inspite of his claim that, hand loan of Rs.10 lacs was paid; and obviously, therefore, the complainant needed to insert something at some place to remove this discrepancy. Now, this could be done by adding an amount of Rs.50,000/said to have been paid on any the dates of payment mentioned in the complaint or by adding a new date and stating that Rs.50,000/- was paid on such newly given date. The logic of the Sessions judge that total amount of loan was Rs.10 lac, therefore, amount of Rs.50,000/- mentioned against the entry dated 7.5.2005 must be a clerical or typographical mistake, is unacceptable. All that could be inferred from this was that either the record of the payment of Rs. 50,000/- had not been mentioned in the complaint, or some entry relating to the payments said to have been made on different dates, was wrong, being short by Rs.50,000/-.
