- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is a revision against the order dated 16-5-1987 passed by the City Magistrate, Bareilly in case No. 4 of 1987 under Section 145 Cr. P. C. , allowing the application for amendment of the written statement.
(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that an application was filed by the revisionist against the opposite parties under Section 145 Cr. P. C. THE opposite parties appeared and filed their written statement. THEreafter they moved an application for amendment in that written statement and the learned Magistrate allowed that application. Aggrieved with that order the revisionist Mohd. Faruq filed this revision. On the date fixed for hearing of the revision neither the revisionist nor the opposite parties appeared in this Court, hence the arguments of the learned A. G. A. were heard and the impugned order was perused by me. It is to be seen that there is no provision for amendment in the Criminal Procedure Code and so in that view of the matter no order for allowing the amendment should have been passed by the learned Magistrate. If the opposite parties were of the view that there was some mistake in any part of the written statement, then instead of moving an amendment application, they should have filed an application alongwith an affidavit in which they should have asserted the correct facts and should have pleaded that some wrong facts were written in the written statement and so now additional written statement and/or affidavit may be permitted to be filed by the opposite parties before the Magistrate. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for amendment except for correction of any clerical or mathematical mistake and thus the learned Magistrate committed material irregularity and exceeded its jurisdiction while allowing the amendment application. The revision, therefore deserves to be allowed. The revision is, therefore, allowed. The order passed by the learned Magistrate on the amendment application is, therefore, set aside and the amendment application moved by the opposite party stands rejected. The opposite party shall, however, be at liberty to move an application for filing additional written statement/affidavit containing the allegation which he wanted to be incorporated in his written statement by way of amendment. Revision allowed. .;