The Doctrine of a "scrivener's error" is the legal rule that a map-drafting or typographical error in a written contract may be corrected by oral evidence if the evidence is clear, convincing, and precise. On the off chance that such correction (called scrivener's amendment) affects property rights, then it must be approved by those affected by it.
It is a mistake made while replicating or transmitting legal documents, as recognized from a judgment error, which is an error made in the activity of judgment or discretion, or a technical error, which is an error in interpreting a law, regulation, or rule. There is a large group of case law concerning the proper treatment of a scrivener's error. For example, where the parties to a contract make an oral agreement that, when decreased to composition, is mistranscribed, the aggrieved party is qualified for reformation, so the composing relates to the oral agreement. In certain circumstances, courts can also correct scrivener's errors found in primary legislation.
A scrivener's error can be the reason for an appellate court to remand a decision back to the trial court. For example, in Ortiz v. State of Florida, Ortiz had been convicted of possession of under 20g of marijuana, a misdemeanour. Be that as it may, Ortiz was mistakenly adjudicated guilty of a crime for the tally of marijuana possession. The appellate court held that "we should remand the case to the trial court to correct a scrivener's error."
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Indian Police are two different law enforcement bodies in two different states. Though both the organizations have similar responsibilities, still there is a lot to separate them.
The amendment of 2005 brought major changes which, in a way, helped to eliminate gender discrimination in the HUF related to property division and more effective use of fundamental rights.