C. A. RAHIM, J. ( 1 ) IN presence of learned Counsel of both sides and with their consent the matter has been taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the notice, as required under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, was not proper and hence no cause of action arose in this case. He has submitted that the cheque was deposited on 8. 9. 1993 and notice was issued on 27. 9. 1993, i. e. , after 15 days as provided in that act. In reply learned Advocate for respondent No. 3 has submitted that the cheque was presented thrice, i. e. , on 8. 9. 1993,13. 9. 1993 and 17. 9. 1993 and all the times cheque was dishonoured. According to him the notice should have been served within 15 days from the date of last presentation, i. e. , on 17. 9. 1993 and it was done properly. Learned Counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the respondent No. 3 was not entitled to present the cheque on more time than one. Both submission of the learned Counsel for the revisionists cannot be sustained. The drawee of the cheque is entitled to present the cheque as many times as possible within the prescribed period and if presented and dishonoured on each occasion of drawee in entitled to issue notice to launch prosecution under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act within 15 days from the date of last presentation. In this respect I find that notice was quite in order. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionists has been submitted that no statement of the witnesses except the complainant was taken under Section 200, Cr. P. C. while issuing process and no list of the witness has been mentioned in the petition of complaint. So the process issued by the learned Magistrate is barred under Section 204 (2), cr. P. C. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has challenged the version of other side by referring a decision in case of Abdullah Bhat v. Gulam Mohammad Wani, 1972 Cr. L. J. 277 (FB) wherein it has been decided that the omission to file a list of witnesses along with the complaint should not have a more far reaching effect. The guiding principle should be if any prejudice was caused to the accused. L. J. 277 (FB) wherein it has been decided that the omission to file a list of witnesses along with the complaint should not have a more far reaching effect. The guiding principle should be if any prejudice was caused to the accused. The object of section 204 (1) is not to introduce a requirement that goes to the root of Jurisdiction. Honble Judges have also held that the purpose is to apprise the accused at the earliest opportunity of the person who are likely to give evidence against him and to sucttle any attempt on the part of the complainant subsequently to improve the state of evidence by made-up witness. This may give a valuable right to the accused but it is not certainly one which the law regards as fundamental or sacred. ( 4 ) SECTION 204, Cr. P. C. provides that no summon or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until list of the prosecution witness has been filed. So this sub-section envisage that until and unless the prosecution files a list of the witness no summon or warrant shall be issued. There is no provison that the said list of the witness shall be mentioned in the petition of complaint. It can be supplied any time and until and unless that list is supplied summon or warrant shall not be issued from the Court though ordered. If any Order of summon is passed by the learned magistrate after examination of the witness under Section 200, Cr. P. C the rquisite for issuing summons shall include the list of the witness and until that is supplied Parvana of the summons shall not be issued. The Full Bench decision has clearly mentioned that it does not take away the jurisdiction of the Court from issuing summons or it will not make the complaint invalid unless prejudice cause to the accused. So if the list of the witness is supplied after the order of issuing summons is passed and before issuing of Parvana of summons to the accused I feel that no prejudice would be caused to the accused. Accordingly the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist fails. ( 5 ) AS regards the examination of the complainant and the witness under Section 200, Cr. Accordingly the contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist fails. ( 5 ) AS regards the examination of the complainant and the witness under Section 200, Cr. P. C. it is the discretion of the learned Magistrate to examine any number of witnesses or the sole complainant for his satisfaction to show whether any prima facie case is established. This is a case where documentary evidence will take a major part than verbal one and if in this respect the learned Magistrate is satisfied after taking the evidence of the complainant only and after going through the relevant documents and has issued process thereby it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has taken up a procedure which is irregular or illegal. ( 6 ) IN ground No. 8 at page 3 of the petition it has been mentioned that the concerned cheque book was lost and it was published in the newspaper on 1. 10. 1993. Learned Counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the said publication was made prior to the receipt of the notice on 4. 10. 1993. The cheque was presented on 8. 9. 1993, 13. 9. 1993 and 17. 9. 1993. There is no averments that after the cheque book was lost informations sent to Bank to stop payment. The notice was received by the revisionists on 4. 10. 1993 but it was not replied with the allegation that the cheque book was lost or that no cheque was issued in favour of the respondent No. 3. However, this is a matter which should be scrutinized during the trial. The learned Magistrate shall look into the reason for which the cheque was issued and the allegation made by the revisionists (accused before him) I do not make any comment in this respect. With the above observation, this criminal revision is dismissed being without any merit. Revision dismissed. .