Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
Samit Gopal, J.
X- Juvenile – Appellant
Vs.
State of
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1135 of 2024
Decided On :
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Correction of orders - The court addressed a correction application regarding an inadvertent error in referencing Criminal Revision No. 1135 of 2024 instead of 1135 of 2023 - The court emphasized the importance of accuracy in judicial proceedings to prevent irreparable loss to the applicant. (Paras 6, 10, 11)
(B) Judicial administration - The court noted that errors in listing can occur and emphasized the need for accountability in court processes to maintain integrity. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The applicant filed a correction application to rectify a clerical error in an order dated 06.03.2025, which mistakenly referenced the wrong revision number. The error was acknowledged in a report from the Registrar, which stated that the mix-up was unintentional.
Findings of Court:
The court recalled the erroneous order and allowed the correction application, ensuring that the matter would be listed before the appropriate bench.
Issues: The main issue was the correction of an order due to an inadvertent clerical error in referencing the case number.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that maintaining accurate records is essential to prevent any potential harm to the parties involved and that the correction was necessary to uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings.
Result: Correction application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Samit Gopal, J.
Order on Crl. Misc. Correction Application No.4 of 2025
1. List revised.
2. No one appears on behalf of the revisionist to press this correction application despite the fact that there are three learned counsels appearing in the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the State is present.
4. The lawyers are abstaining from work today again which is continuing since 02:00 pm from 24.03.2025.
5. This correction application is being decided on the basis of records and with the assistance of the learned counsels for the State.
6. A Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 4 of 2025 dated 11.03.2025 has been filed before this Court with the following prayers:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present correction application and correct the heading clause of the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision No. 1135 of 2024 and read Criminal Revision No. 1135 of 2023, otherwise the applicant/revisionist shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
7. On 17.03.2025 this Court passed the following order on the same:
"Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 01 of 2025
1. Heard Sri Deepak Rana, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bare Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.
2. An application for correction has been moved in the matter with the prayer that the order dated 06.03.2025 be corrected since the same was to be passed in Criminal Revision No. 1135 of 2023 but the present matter, i.e. 1135 of 2024 appears to have been placed before the Court and on 06.03.2025 order has been passed herein.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that on 06.03.2025 as a matter of fact the Criminal Revision No. 1135 of 2023 was listed at S.L. No. 21 in the cause list.
4. Office to give report as to how the file of the present matter was sent to this Court on the said date, despite the same being not listed. The report be routed through Registrar (Listing).
5. Let a report be sent within a week and the matter be listed before this Court on 27.03.2025."
8. Office has placed on record through its report dated 26.03.2025 a report/explanation of the Registrar (J) (Listing) dated 24.03.2025. This Court has perused the same. The said report is based on the report of the Assistant Review Officer (Criminal Revision Section) dated 24.03.2025 which has been submitted to him. The same reads as under:
"May kindly see your goodself's office note dated 20.03.2025, wherein a report has been sought from the undersigned in compliance of the Court Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Court No. 64 in Criminal Revision No. 1135 of 2024 as to why Criminal Revision No. 1135 of 2024 was sent to the Hon'ble Court No. 78 instead of Criminal Revision No. 1135 of 2023 which was listed on 06.03.2025 in the Hon'ble Court No. 78.
In this regard, it is humbly submitted that Criminal Revision 1135 of 2023 which was listed on 06.03.2025 in the Hon'ble Court No. 78, but inadvertently Criminal Revision No. 1135 of 2024 was sent to the Hon'ble Court No. 78 instead of Criminal Revision No. 1135 of 2023. It is humbly submitted that the same was happened unintentionally.
It is further submitted that undersigned deeply regrets for inconvenience caused to the Hon'ble Court and prays for unconditional apology for the same. undersigned will be aware and such mistakes will not occur again in the future.
Submitted with regards for your kindness."
9. Thus the said reports go to show that due to inadvertence the file of Criminal Revision No. 1135 of 2024 was sent to this Court instead of file of Criminal Revision No. 1135 of 2023. Thus the order dated 06.03.2025 has been passed in the same which reads as under:
"1. List revised.
2. Sri Shobhit Jaiswal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Dasarathi Das, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh learned counsel for the State are present.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist prays for an adjournment in
The court emphasized the necessity for accuracy in judicial orders to prevent irreparable loss due to clerical errors.
The court has the discretion to allow modification to correct typographical errors in orders.
The court emphasized the necessity for complete and accurate pleadings, ruling that the modification of a confirmed entry was impermissible due to prior judicial decisions.
The court upheld the principle of correcting typographical errors in legal documents to reflect accurate representation and intent.
Compliance with the rules governing the presentation of appeals is essential, and failure to do so may result in the refusal to condone delays in filing appeals.
A court may recall its previous orders when new factual information is presented that justifies such action.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
