SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 676

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Premsingh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 227 of 2021; Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11796 of 2021
Decided on : 06-08-2021

Advocates appeared:
Sanjay Khan, Advocate, Laxman Meena, Advocate

Rectification of errors in recording statements and orders.

Headnote:

Rectification - Criminal Antecedents - The court rectified an error in a previous order regarding the petitioner's criminal antecedents, acknowledging the existence of another pending case against the petitioner under Sections 323 and 341/34 IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The court rectified an error in a previous order regarding the petitioner's criminal antecedents, acknowledging the existence of another pending case against the petitioner under Sections 323 and 341/34 IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the statement of the petitioner's counsel regarding the absence of criminal antecedents was recorded erroneously and required rectification.

Issues: The issue was the erroneous recording of the petitioner's criminal antecedents in a previous order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court rectified the error in the previous order and directed the correction of the statement regarding the petitioner's criminal antecedents.

Final Decision: The application for rectification was allowed, and the court directed the correction of the previous order regarding the petitioner's criminal antecedents.

JUDGMENT

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submitted that in the order dated 5.8.2021 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Bail Appl. No.11796/2021, inadvertently, it came to be recorded as if he has stated that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent; whereas, he has stated that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents of similar nature. As a matter of fact, another case under Sections 323 and 341/34 IPC is pending against him as is reflected in the order dated 15.7.2021 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Tijara, Alwar, dismissing his bail application.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

3. The order dated 15.7.2021 specifically mentions pendency of another case against the petitioner under Sections 323 and 341/34 IPC and hence, it is apparent that in the order dated 5.8.2021, the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner as to absence of criminal antecedents came to be recorded erroneously and the same requires to be rectified.

4. In view thereof, the application is allowed. It is directed that in the order dated 5.8.2021, at page 1, it may be read the petitioner does not have criminal antecedents of similar nature instead of he has no criminal antecedents and also at page no.2 absence of criminal antecedents of similar nature be read instead of absence of criminal antecedents.

5. This order may be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 5.8.2021.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top