Full Text
Translation output
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRL.MP.NO. 6442 OF 2008
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 330 OF 2008
KISHOR KIRTILAL MEHTA & ORS. Appellant (s)
CRL.MP.NO. 6442 OF 2008
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 330 OF 2008
KISHOR KIRTILAL MEHTA & ORS. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
VIJAY KIRTILAL MEHTA & ORS. Respondent(s)
This application has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 for correction of certain typographical errors in the
This application has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 for correction of certain typographical errors in the
ORDER
delivered in the appeal on 18/02/2008.
The details of the errors have been set out in the application. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that he has gone through the application and he has no objection to such errors being corrected.
In that view of the matter, the application is allowed. Let the corrections be carried out in the manner indicated in the application.
Over and above the said errors, it seems there are some other mistakes which have also come to notice after this application was filed, namely, -2- i) Paragraph 15 has been mentioned twice at pages 10&12 of the judgment. Let the paragraph at page 12 be renumbered as 15A. ii) At page 33 of the judgement at paragraph 39 the name of the learned senior counsel for the State has been wrongly shown as Mr. P.B. Sawant when it should be Mr. C.J. Sawant.
Let the said two errors be also corrected. Let a certified copy of the corrected copy of the judgement be given to the parties.
The corrections made in terms of this application should not stand in the way of the application of the appellants being heard by the Bombay High Court with regard to the examination of the documents in question, which we are told is fixed for hearing on 16th April, 2008. ....................J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR) ....................J.
(MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
NEW DELHI;
April 11, 2008.
The details of the errors have been set out in the application. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that he has gone through the application and he has no objection to such errors being corrected.
In that view of the matter, the application is allowed. Let the corrections be carried out in the manner indicated in the application.
Over and above the said errors, it seems there are some other mistakes which have also come to notice after this application was filed, namely, -2- i) Paragraph 15 has been mentioned twice at pages 10&12 of the judgment. Let the paragraph at page 12 be renumbered as 15A. ii) At page 33 of the judgement at paragraph 39 the name of the learned senior counsel for the State has been wrongly shown as Mr. P.B. Sawant when it should be Mr. C.J. Sawant.
Let the said two errors be also corrected. Let a certified copy of the corrected copy of the judgement be given to the parties.
The corrections made in terms of this application should not stand in the way of the application of the appellants being heard by the Bombay High Court with regard to the examination of the documents in question, which we are told is fixed for hearing on 16th April, 2008. ....................J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR) ....................J.
(MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
NEW DELHI;
April 11, 2008.