JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging an order dated 1.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas in G.R. Case No. 26 of 2019 arising out of Bidhannagar (Women) Police Station Case No. 1 of 2019 dated 10.1.2019 under Sections 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Affidavits of service filed on behalf of the petitioner are taken on record. 3. A report is also filed on behalf of the State indicating that the opposite party no.2 was informed by the police authorities about the pendency of this matter. 4. Despite service, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2. 5. Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits as follows. It was the prime contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was out of India and at the time of carrying out the order passed by the learned Magistrate and search and seizure by the Investigating Officer, a representative of the petitioner is required to be present and for this reason, the petitioner needed some time to comply with the formalities of giving power of attorney in favour of his representative. Now, the petitioner has been able to give such instruction to his representative along with the necessary power of attorney. As such, the petitioner would not like to press this application. The petitioner is willing to comply with the direction of the learned Magistrate to open the locker. As such, no force is required to be used. 6. Mr. N.P. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, submits that the State has no issues with the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and reiterates that the defacto-complainant was indeed intimated by the State about the pendency of the present revision. 7. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the revision petition. 8. Since the petitioner is willing to comply with the order of the learned Magistrate to have the locker in question opened, there would be no need to break open the locker. 7. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the revision petition. 8. Since the petitioner is willing to comply with the order of the learned Magistrate to have the locker in question opened, there would be no need to break open the locker. The impugned order is, accordingly, modified to the extent that the learned Magistrate shall fix a date for opening of the locker and pursuant to such order, the Investigating Officer will open the locker in the presence of the representative of the petitioner as well as the defacto-complainant and for this purpose of prior notice shall be given by the Investigating Officer to both the parties. 9. With these observations, the revisional application and the connected miscellaneous application are disposed of. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.