(1.) THOUGH the respondent was represented by a counsel and was directed to file a reply no reply was filed till 24. 11. 1995 as directed. On 24. 11. 95 none was present on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 15. 12. 95 for arguments and for filling the reply, if any, in the meanwhile. On 12. 1. 1996, when the case was taken up, there was no representation for the respondent even on that day and no reply appears to have been filed. Any how this petition was adjourned to 9. 2. 96 and the office was directed to inform the counsel for the respondent. The office note now says that the respondent has been informed. Despite all this, there is no representation by the counsel for the respondent even today and there is no reply on the file.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends/that the petitioner herein who had filled the complaint under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Section 420, IPC, before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Jalandhar also filed an application for examination of Lakhbir Singh Dhami, Advocate, as a witness on the complainant's side for exhibiting the reply notice alleged to have been sent by the said advocate on behalf of the respondent, but this request was opposed by the respondent and not granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 26. 4. 1994. The petitioner herein had filed appeal (Cr. Appeal No. 10 of 1994) before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar which was also dismissed on the ground, among others, that no appeal was competent. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court under S. 482, Code of Cr. Procedure.
(3.) SO far as the other objections that the name of the advocate is not mentioned in the List of Witnesses annexed to the complaint is. also no ground for not permitting the complainant to examine this witness. In the circumstances, I find that the learned magistrate was not justified in rejecting the request made by the complainant/petitioner.