Supreme Court Corrects Typographical Error in Judgment - Error in Year of Case Number. The Court directed correction of a typographical error in its judgment dated 20th May, 2025, where the year of the case number was incorrectly mentioned as '2000' instead of '2020'.

  • 12
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court, in a brief order dated 23rd May, 2025, addressed a typographical error in its earlier judgment and order dated 20th May, 2025, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 603/2025 and 2569/2025. The error pertained to the case number of a miscellaneous case: in paragraphs 27 and 29 of the judgment, 'Miscellaneous Case No.9/2020 in respect of Crime Case No.11/2020' was incorrectly typed as 'Miscellaneous Case No.9/2000 in respect of Crime Case No.11/2000'. The Court directed the Registry to make the necessary correction and do the needful. The order was signed by the Court Master and marked as reportable.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Correction of Typographical Error - Inherent Power of Court - The Supreme Court corrected a typographical error in its judgment and order dated 20th May, 2025, where the year of the case number was incorrectly mentioned as '2000' instead of '2020' - Held that the Registry shall make the necessary correction (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a typographical error in the judgment and order dated 20th May, 2025, regarding the year of the case number, should be corrected.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court directed the Registry to correct the typographical error in paragraphs 27 and 29 of the judgment and order dated 20th May, 2025, by replacing 'Miscellaneous Case No.9/2000 in respect of Crime Case No.11/2000' with 'Miscellaneous Case No.9/2020 in respect of Crime Case No.11/2020'.

Law Points

  • Typographical error correction
  • Judicial order correction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (SC) (5) 133

Criminal Appeal No(s). 603/2025 and Crl.A. No. 2569/2025

2025-05-23

Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, Mr. Devvrat Pradhan, Mr. Vikas Bansal, Dr. Vijendra Singh, Ms. Apurva Singh, Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi

Rajni

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal

Remedy Sought

Correction of typographical error in judgment

Filing Reason

Typographical error in paragraphs 27 and 29 of the judgment dated 20th May, 2025

Previous Decisions

Judgment and order dated 20th May, 2025

Issues

Whether a typographical error in the judgment should be corrected

Ratio Decidendi

The Court has inherent power to correct typographical errors in its judgments to ensure accuracy of records.

Judgment Excerpts

There is a typographical error in paragraphs 27 and 29 of the judgment and order dated 20th May, 2025. Instead of ‘Miscellaneous Case No.9/2020 in respect of Crime Case No.11/2020’, it has been typed as ‘Miscellaneous Case No.9/2000 in respect of Crime Case No.11/2000’.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court had passed a judgment and order on 20th May, 2025 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 603/2025 and 2569/2025. Subsequently, a typographical error was noticed in paragraphs 27 and 29 of that judgment. The present order was passed on 23rd May, 2025 to correct the error.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Corrects Typographical Error in Judgment - Error in Year of Case Number. The Court directed correction of a typographical error in its judgment dated 20th May, 2025, where the year of the case number was incorrectly mentioned as '2000' ...
Related Judgement
High Court Blacklisting Order Set Aside — Violation of Principles of Natural Justice — Procedural Irregularity in Policy Implementation