Judgment : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner/A10. 2. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner/A10, the petitioner's name was inadvertently typed as 'B.Ramachandran' instead of 'B.Ramachandra', in the judgment in C.C.No.1 of 2003 on the file of the learned IX Additional Special Judge for CBI cases at Chennai. Further, it comes to be known that the petitioner filed memo dated 16.07.2014, before the trial Court for correction of his name in the certified copy of the judgment dated 08.01.2014. But the said memo was returned by the trial Court, stating that the material part of records in C.C.No.1 of 2003 was sent to Hon'ble High Court, Madras for consideration of Crl.A.Nos.31, 43, 48, 49, 55, 57 and 68 of 2014. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/A10, brings it to the notice of this Court that the aforesaid criminal appeals were admitted by this Court. 3. The relief sought for by the Petitioner/A10, in the present Criminal Original Petition is that this Court may pass an order directing the Registry to correct the name of the Petitioner/A10 in the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.1 of 2003 dated 08.01.2014 as 'B.Ramachandra' instead of 'B.Ramachandran', by deleting the last letter 'n' or in the alternative the petitioner has sought for passing of an order by this Court directing the Registry to send the original judgment dated 08.01.2014 in C.C.No.1 of 2003 to the said trial Court for correction of the name of the Petitioner/A10. 4. At this stage, this Court likes to recollect and recall the ingredients of Section 362 Cr.P.C., which unerringly points out that except a clerical or arithmetical error, a Court of Law, is not to alter the judgment or review his judgment as per the decision in Ajith Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1982 (2) Cri.L.J. 1215 (FB), It cannot be gainsaid that an arithmetical error is a mistake in calculation. However, a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing as per the decision in Smt.Sooraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal & Another, reported in (1981) (1) SCC 500. 5. In the instant case, the Petitioner/A10, seeks to correct his name in the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.1 of 2003 dated 08.01.2014 as 'B.Ramachandra' instead of 'B.Ramachandran' by deleting the last letter 'n'. 6. Pyare Lal & Another, reported in (1981) (1) SCC 500. 5. In the instant case, the Petitioner/A10, seeks to correct his name in the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.1 of 2003 dated 08.01.2014 as 'B.Ramachandra' instead of 'B.Ramachandran' by deleting the last letter 'n'. 6. In view of the fact that the original judgment in C.C.No.1 of 2003 on the file of the learned IX Additional Special Judge for CBI cases at Chennai, was sent along with the other material parts of the records to this Court, relating to Crl.A.Nos.31, 43, 48, 49, 55, 57 and 68 of 2014, this Court directs the Registry to send the judgment in C.C.No.1 of 2003 on the file of the trial Court, to the trial Court forthwith for making necessary correction in regard to the name of the Petitioner/A10 in the judgment in issue. 7. Upon receipt of the judgment in C.C.No.1 of 2003, by the learned IX Additional Special Judge for CBI cases at Chennai, the Petitioner/A10, is directed to file necessary miscellaneous application in terms of 'Criminal Rules of Practice' for correction of petitioner's name as 'B.Ramachandra' instead of 'B.Ramachandran', within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such application being filed by him, the trial Court is directed to pass appropriate orders in regard to the correction sought for, within a week thereafter, of course, after providing necessary opportunity to other side by adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of at the SR stage itself.