Judgment Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for non-applicant No.1 and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.2. 2. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The applicant is the original complainant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.9, Amravati in Criminal Case No.743/2008. Non-applicant No.1 is the accused in the said Criminal Case. non-applicant No.1 is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant, who is the original complainant, had moved an application for correction of some typographical mistakes in the complaint. There are two typographical mistakes. One pertains to the name of the bank and other pertains to the date of service of notice on non-applicant No.1. The learned trial Court had rejected the application for grant of permission to correct the mistakes. 4. The applicant moved the learned Sessions Court by filing revision application. The revision application has been dismissed. The applicant has, therefore, moved this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for non-applicant No.1 and learned A.P.P. for non-applicant/ State. During the course of argument, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant that the particulars of the offence have been explained to non-applicant No.1 and that he has pleaded not guilty. In view of the fact that the trial has begun, without going to the details of the orders passed by the learned Courts below, it can be stated here that if any typographical mistake has been committed in the complaint, it is not necessary that it should be corrected. The complainant can give the correct dates and correct name of the bank during the course of recording of his oral evidence/ affidavit of evidence and he can demonstrate before the Court that what he had stated in his evidence is correct and thereby convince the Court that there was typographical error in the complaint. I think that it is not necessary to examine whether the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the learned Sessions Judge are right or wrong. Suffice is to say the error occurred during the course of drafting of the complaint can be taken care of during recording of the evidence. The application stands dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Suffice is to say the error occurred during the course of drafting of the complaint can be taken care of during recording of the evidence. The application stands dismissed accordingly. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. The trial to proceed with immediate effect.