The High Court of Orissa allowed a prayer to correct an inadvertent error in a prior order, changing the mention of IPC Sections 417/418 to Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
The prayer for correction is allowed and the court directed that the offences in paragraph-9 be corrected from Sections 417/418 of I.P.C. to Section 138 of N.I. Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.172 of 2020
Antaryami Badu …. Petitioner
Mr. S. Rath,
Advocate
-versus-
….
Rajanikanta Nayak Opposite Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
30.3.2022.
Order No.
I.A. No.2070 of 2021
05. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in
Paragraph-9 of the order dated 1 st December, 2021 instead of
mentioning “Section 138 of N.I.A. Act”, “Sections 417/418 of
I.P.C.” has been inadvertently mentioned.
4. Considering the submissions made, the prayer for correction
is allowed. It is directed that in the last but one line of
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
paragraph-9 of the order dated 1st December, 2021 the offences mentioned as “Sections 417/418 of I.P.C.” are corrected as Section 138 of N.I. Act.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
AKB Judge
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow the correction of an inadvertent error in the wording of offences cited in a prior order.
Antaryami Badu
Rajanikanta Nayak
Sashikanta Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
