The petitioner having not chosen to cross-examine

P.W.1 on two occasions, the learned Magistrate rejected

the request of the petitioner-accused to cross-examine

P.W.1, and the cross-examination of P.W.1 was taken as

8Nil9.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the accused has denied the signature on the cheque

and also that he has not received the notice issued by the

complainant as specified under Section 138(b) of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, she submits that if the

accused is deprived of cross-examination of P.W.1 it would

result in miscarriage of justice.

3.

The respondent though served with the notice

has remained absent.

4.

I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

- 3 -

5.

A perusal of the order sheet indicates that the

accused has not chosen to cross-examine P.W.1 on two

occasions. The accused having disputed his signature on

the cheque and also the receipt of the notice issued under

Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it would

result in miscarriage of justice to the accused, if he is not

permitted to cross-examine P.W.1. No prejudice will be

caused to the complainant if the accused is permitte