Crl. Misc. No.M-12358 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-12358 of 2011 Date of decision: May 16, 2011. Ranjit Singh ... Petitioner(s) v. Hargunpreet Singh ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri V.K. Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). None for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 10.5.2010 passed by JMIC, Amritsar in complaint No.350 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act be set aside as the learned Magistrate by closing the defence evidence has denied the effective opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case by way of defence evidence. It is further prayed that order dated 13.4.2011 whereby the order dated 10.5.2010 passed by JMIC was affirmed, be also set aside. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is facing trial in a complaint instituted by the respondent – Hargunpreet Singh. It is stated that the above stated complaint has been filed by Hargurnpreet Singh through attorney Inderjit Singh. Office has reported that the service of notice has been effected upon Inderjit Singh, Clerk to Shri Parminder Singh Crl. Misc. No.M-12358 of 2011 -: 2 :- Sethi, Advocate. Counsel has stated that this Inderjit Singh is none else than the attorney of Hargunpreet Singh, hence service upon the respondent is complete. On second call, no body is present on behalf of the respondent. Shri V.K. Sandhir, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has stated that only one opportunity be granted to examine Ahlmad to the Court of Shri Blawinder Kumar, JMIC, Amritsar along with case file of complaint titled as “Sandeep Singh v Hargunpreet Singh” instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; Darshan Singh and Sandeep Singh. Counsel states that he shall examine Darshan Singh and Sandeep Singh at his own risk and responsibility. After hearing Counsel for the petitioner, present petition is disposed of by issuing a direction to the trial court to ensure presence of Ahlmad to the Court of Shri Balwinder Kumar, JMIC, Amritsar along with record of case file titled as “Sandeep Singh v. Hargunpreet Singh”, and examine him positively on the next date of hearing. Besides this, the petitioner is also permitted to examine Darshan Singh and Sandeep Singh two witnesses at his own risk and responsibility on that date. Since the petitioner has already availed many opportunities to conclude his evidence, this Court is of the view that the complainant is also required to be compensated. The cost which the petitioner is required to pay to the respondent is assessed at Rs.5,000/-. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] May 16, 2011. Judge kadyan