Patna High Court
Batoran Mahto @ Batoran Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 18 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 25164 of 2021
Arising out of
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31852 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2018 Thana- JURAWANPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Batoran Mahto @ Batoran Rai, age 60 years, Male Son of Dharamlal Mahto.
2. Shiv Rai, age 47 years, Male Son of Late Musafir Rai.
3. Bhagwan Mahto, age 48 years, Male Son of Ram Das Mahto.
All resident of Village - Raghopur, PS - Jurawanpur, District - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Rina Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-08-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Ms. Rina Sinha, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.
3. The present application has been filed seeking
modification of the judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in
the petition of Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020, the name of the father
of the petitioner no. 2 and that of petitioner no. 3 have been
erroneously interchanged. It was submitted that the name of father
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25164 of 2021 dt.18-08-2021
of petitioner no. 2 Shiv Rai is Late Musafir Rai which has been
shown to be the name of the father of petitioner no. 3, Bhagwan
Mahto and the name of father of petitioner no. 3, Bhagwan Mahto
is Ram Das Mahto who has been shown to be father of petitioner
no. 2, Shiv Rai. Learned counsel submitted that she may be
permitted to correct the name of father of petitioners no. 2 and 3 in
the main petition of Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020 as also in the
Vakalatnama and the Court may then allow such correction to be
made in the cause title of the judgment and order dated
26.02.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020.
5. Learned APP does not object.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court
finds that such error is due to inadvertent typographical error.
7. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners is
permitted to make correction in the name of the father of the
petitioners no. 2 and 3 in the main petition of Cr. Misc. No. 31852
of 2020 and the Vakalatnama; and as a consequence, the said
correction in the name of the father of petitioners no. 2 and 3 be
also incorporated in judgment and order dated 26.02.2021 passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 31852 of 2020.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25164 of 2021 dt.18-08-2021
8. The rest of the aforesaid judgment and order shall
remain unchanged.
9. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T
