Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.02.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana in Criminal Complaint No. 53/1 dated 10.02.2004 titled as Vijay Kumar Bansal v. Shashi Jain and Ors. during the cross -examination of the Petitioner by which the objection of the Petitioner that Mr. Parveen Garg, Advocate and Mr. Piyush Kant, Advocate representing the same set of accused was declined and order dated 20.03.2010 by which the application of the Petitioner expunging the cross examination dated 08.05.2009, 23.10.2009, 11.12.2009, 22.01.2010, 19.02.2010 and 20.02.2010 was dismissed.
(2.) THE Petitioner moved application for expunging the cross examination dated 08.05.2009, 23.10.2009, 11.12.2009, 22.01.2010, 19.02.2010 and 20.02.2010. However, the trial Court vide order dated 20.03.2010 dismissed the said application. While challenging the impugned order, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the cross examination of the same set of persons i.e. Respondents No. 1 to 6 by two different advocates on two different dates cannot be allowed. Moreover, in the present case, neither power of attorney nor any memorandum of appearance was filed by Sh. Parveen Garg, Advocate when he started cross examination of the prosecution witness on 08.05.2009 and he conducted the cross examination of the prosecution witness on number of dates without the power of attorney. Heard.
(3.) AS is apparent from the order of the Court below that on 16.01.2009, the cross examination was conducted by Sh. Parveen Garg, Advocate and thereafter, continuously on each and every date. No objection was raised at that stage. Para 6 of the reply to the application moved by the Petitioner reads as under : - 6. Moreover, as per provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused have a right to be defended by the pleader of their choice and the pleader has been defined as "a person authorized by or under law for the time being in force to practice in such Court and includes any other person appointed with permission of the court to act in such proceedings." Therefore, for the appointment of a pleader no express authority is required. The authority can be expressed or implied. In this case, the accused are submitting affidavits to the effect that they have appointed Shri Parveen Garg, Advocate to conduct their case. The affidavits are attached herewith. Under these circumstances, this application is without any force and it is just to confuse the matter and to delay the proceedings. Even a fresh power of attorney/vakalatnama is being filed to remove any doubt.;