1. Mr. Sujan Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the Recreation Advertising Services, the Petitioner in C.R.R.1208 of 2008, files the Affidavit-in-opposition. Let it be kept with the record.

2. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing for the Manika Poti Biswas, the Applicant in this CRAN Application, contends that while disposing of the Revisional Application being C.R.R.1208 of 2008, this Court made a mistake apparent on the face of the record, which is contrary to the statute and for that his client is not supposed to suffer. He takes me to the concluding portion of the order dated 16.3.2011 passed in C.R.R.1208 of 2008 and submits that this Court in Clause (a) directed—

“That the order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate is however, modified to the effect that “in case of failure to pay compensation amount, the opposite parties should suffer Simple Imprisonment for two years” be added to what has been sentenced by the learned Trial Court.”

3. He refers to Sections 64, 65 & 66 of the Indian Penal Code and submits that according to provisions of law, the period for which the Court may direct the offender to suffer imprisonment in default of payme