Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in revision, upholding the order dated 4.6.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases), No. 1, Jodhpur in complaint case No. 1299 of 2010 whereby, the learned Trial Court allowed the respondent-complainant No. 2 to make corrections in the complaint.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the number of the cheque mentioned in the complaint was different from the number of cheque, for the bouncing of which, the petitioner was given a notice under Section 138 of the NI Act. Learned counsel thus submits that the learned Trial Court was not at all justified in permitting alteration in the number of the cheque. Learned counsel submits that by order permitting alteration in the cheque number, the petitioner's defence will be seriously has been prejudiced. He thus prays that the instant misc. petition deserves to be allowed.
(3.) Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties at the bar, upon perusal of the orders passed by the learned sub-ordinate Courts as well as the material available on the record, it is evident that the notice of demand given to the petitioner on behalf of the complainant was for the cheque No. 573685 issued by the petitioner which was dishonoured. There is a minor discrepancy regarding the cheque number in the complaint. The cheque number which has been mentioned in the complaint is 573585 dated 25.2.2010, whereas the correct number of the cheque is 573685 dated 25.2.2010. Thus, only a minor insignificant typographical error crept in the complaint regarding the cheque number. The learned Trial Court was therefore, acting well within its powers while permitting the complainant to make necessary correction in the complaint regarding the number of the cheque.;