JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have filed this petition u/s. 482 Cr, P. C. being aggrieved against the order of the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Srimadhopur dated 2.4.92 by which the application was rejected for making correction in the order 9.3.92. 2. The learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, vide his order dated 9.3.92, had directed that the Jeep which was seized by the police, should be given in the `superdaginama of the petitioners. The number of Jeep was mentioned in the order as NLH 3332. I am not required to examine whether the said order of the learned Magistrate was correct or not. Suffice is to mention here the learned Magistrate rejected the claim of another claimant Nathu Ram with regard to the Jeep and the claim of the petitioners for the custody of the jeep was accepted. 3. After the said order, the petitioner moved an application that on account of typing mistake, the number of jeep was given as NLH 3332 in place of NLM 3332 and that, it was a clerical mistake and the same should be corrected. The learned Magistrate rejected the application vide impugned order dated 2.4.92. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. It is not in dispute before me that the learned Magistrate had passed the order of the custody in relation to the jeep which was seized in the course of investigation in criminal case continuing to FIR No. 15/90, PS-Srimadhopur. The petitioners and one Nathu Ram had moved separate applications for the custody of the said jeep. The learned Magistrate, while rejecting the application of Nathu Ram, allowed the application of petitioners directing the custody of jeep should be given to them. Hence, it is not in dispute before me that the order of custody of jeep was passed in respect of the jeep which was seized by the police. The petitioners have only prayed for the correction to give the correct registration number of jeep. The petitioners have also stated that it was a typing mistake that in place of NLM 3323 the number of jeep has been mentioned as NLH 3332. The petitioners have only prayed for the correction to give the correct registration number of jeep. The petitioners have also stated that it was a typing mistake that in place of NLM 3323 the number of jeep has been mentioned as NLH 3332. It may be mentioned here that in the order dated 9.3.92, the learned Magistrate himself has observed as under:- " vr% bu rF;ksa ls lkfcr gS fd xkM+h ,u0,y0,e0 3332 dk pSfll izkFkhZ eksguyky bZ'oj }kjk [kjhnk x;k gSA xkM+h dh ckWMh QlypUn iq= Mkywjke fuoklh jkuksyh ls 11]000@& :i, esa [kjhnh xbZ vkSj xkM+h QypUn ds dkj[kkus esa rS;kj djokbZ xbZA " 6. It is true that the petitioners has given the registration number of jeep as NLH 3332 in the application dated 25.2.92. It appears that it was done so because in the registration plato, the number of jeep was mentioned as NLH 3332. 7. As there is no dispute before me that the order of custody was passed by the learned Magistrate in relation to the jeep which has been seized and recovered. The learned Magistrate could have corrected this mistake in exercise of his powers u/s. 362 Cr.P.C. as the mistake appears to be of clerical nature. 8. Consequently, I allow this petition as well as the application of the petitioners. In the order dated 9.3.1992 of the learned Magistrate, Srimadhopur, the number of jeep shall be read as NLM 3332 in place of NLH 3332.The petition is allowed as indicated above. *******