The main legal point established is that curable defects in an affidavit can be rectified, and the court has the power to allow amendment or strike out irrelevant matter in the affidavit to balance adherence to rules with the administration of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. At inception of argument, the learned A.G.A. has raised preliminary objection that learned counsel for the applicant has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 8.8.2023 thereby seeking the permission of this Court, for correction in the affidavit, which has been filed in support of the instant application.

2. He submits that Chapter IV Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 1952') provides that 'no interlineation, alteration or erasures shall be made in an affidavit after it has been sworn'. He added that there is a specific bar for any correction, alteration, etc in all affidavits filed before this Court and, therefore, it is not open for any of the applicant or petitioner or the person who has sworn in the affidavit, to subsequently ask for any change, in the affidavit and, therefore, submission is that the applicant may not be permitted to correct the affidavit and, therefore, the instant application may be dismissed on this ground alone.

3. Replying the aforesaid objections, the counsel for the applicant submits that the provisions of oath or affirmation by a deponent, has been prescribed under Chapter IV Rule 17 of Rules 1952 which speaks in consonance with the provisions of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, which was later on repealed and the Oaths Act, 1969 was promulgated. He submits that section 297 of Cr.P.C. says about the authorities before whom, the affidavits, may be sworn. Section 297 of Cr.P.C. are quoted hereinunder:-

"297. Authorities before whom affidavits may be sworn.—(1) Affidavits to be used before any Court under this Code may be sworn or affirmed before— 4 [(a) any Judge or Judicial or Executive Magistrate, or] (b) any Commissioner of Oaths appointed by a High Court or Court of Session, or (c) any notary appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 (53 of 1952).

(2) Affidavits shall be confined to, and shall state separately, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such facts as he has reasonable ground to believe to be true, and in the latter case, the deponent shall clearly state the grounds of such belief.

(3) The Court may order any scandalous and irrelevant matter in the affidavit to be struck out or amended."

4. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that sub clause (3) of Section 297 of Cr.P.C. provides that 'the court may order any scandalous and irrelevant matter in the affidavit to be struck out or amended', which shows the power vested with the Court to allow amendment or to struck off any fact or information from the affidavit. He argued that in Chapter XII, Rule 1 (2) of the Rules 1952, it has been provided that all corrections and alterations, in the affidavit, shall be initialed by the Oath Commissioners before whom such affidavit (or affidavits) is (or are) sworn in.'

5. Further added that Section 7 of the Oaths Act 1969 also says that 'proceedings and evidence would not invalidate by omission of oath or irregularity. Section 7 of Oaths Act is reproduced hereinunder:-

"7. Proceedings and evidence not invalidated by omission of oath or irregularity.-No omission to take any oath or make any affirmation, no substitution of any one for any other of them, and no irregularity whatever in the administration of any oath or affirmation or in the form in which it is administered, shall invalidate any proceeding or render inadmissible any evidence whatever, in or in respect of which such omission, substitution or irregularity took place, or shall affect the obligation of a witness to state the truth."

6. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Malhotra Steel Syndicate Vs. Punjab Chemi-Plants Ltd, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 565, and submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 'even if there is some slight defect or irregularity in filing of the affidavit, an opportunity should be given to rectify the same'.

7. Further placing reliance on a Judgment of the Apex Cour