1 2025:CGHC:29420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 2006 of 2025 1 - Vijay Baghel S/o Mannu Lal Baghel Aged About 29 Years R/o Dhagaon, P.S.- Dondilohara, Tah., Civil And Rev. District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mannu Lal Baghel S/o Halalkhor Baghel Aged About 43 Years R/o Dhagaon, P.S.- Dondilohara, Tah., Civil And Rev. District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Anita Baghel W/o Hinsha Ram Baghel Aged About 28 Years R/o Dhagaon, P.S.- Dondilohara, Tah., Civil And Rev. District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Goukaran Barege S/o Manna Lal Barege Aged About 28 Years R/o Dhagaon, P.S.- Dondilohara, Tah., Civil And Rev. District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Dondilohara, District Balod C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board 01/07/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this CRMP seeking modification in common order dated 08.05.2025 passed in CRA No. 149/2014 and CRA No. 14/2014. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in CRA No.149/2014, the appellant was acquitted from the charge under Section 148 of IPC and his conviction under Section 307 of IPC was maintained, and in CRA No.14/2014, all the accused/appellants were acquitted from the charges levelled against them, as such, the CRA No.149/2014 ought to have been partly allowed and CRA No.14/2014 ought to have been allowed, but due to typographical error, in para 15 of the order dated 08.05.2025, it has been typed as ‘CRA No. 149/2014 is allowed and CRA No. 14/2014 is partly allowed’. Therefore, the order dated 08.05.2025 may be modified accordingly. 3. I have gone through the impugned order dated 08.05.2025. 4. Perusal of the order dated 08.05.2025 goes to show that the appellants in CRA No.14/2014 were acquitted from the charges levelled against them, and in CRA No.149/2014, appellant was acquitted from the charge under Section 148 of IPC and his 3 conviction under Section 307 IPC was maintained but in para 15 of the order due to typographical error it has been type as under :- “In the result, the CRA No.149/2014 is allowed and CRA No.14/2014 is partly allowed.” 05. The error is apparent on the face of the record which needs to be rectified. 06. Accordingly, it is ordered that para 15 of the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 be read as : “In the result, the CRA No.149/2014 is partly allowed and CRA No.14/2014 is allowed.” 07. The copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners along with CRA No.149/2014 and CRA No.14/2014. 08. With the modification as aforesaid, CRMP stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE