NIA S. 138, 141 – Typographical mistakes should have been rectified by the trial Court, as trial Court has inherent power to rectify such typographical mistakes to do justice between the parties – XYZ through its proprietor was described as an accused and initially the name of the proprietor viz. AK was not mentioned in the complaint – XYZ is the sole proprietary concern and AK is the only proprietor thereof – Whether the accused was described as XYZ through its proprietor AK or whether he is described AK proprietor of XYZ will make no difference – It would not cause any prejudice whatsoever to the petitioner/accused – Revisional Court was fully justified in permitting the complainant to insert the name of AK as the proprietor thereof.
Maan Agro Centre v. EIDParry (India) Ltd, 2004 PLRonline 0009