1. On 17th July 2008, in these two petitions, this Court issued notice for final disposal at the admission stage. Further submissions were heard by this Court on 21st August 2008 and 8th September 2008.

2. When the petitions were placed before this Court (Coram : V.K.Tahilramani, J.) on 8th October 2008, the registry was directed to place these petitions before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders as a contention was raised that the petitions have been substantially argued before this Court. Accordingly, by an administrative order dated 20th October 2008 passed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, these petitions have been assigned to this Court. Accordingly, the petitions were taken up for final hearing on 21st November 2008.

3. It is not in dispute that the facts leading to filing of these two petitions are more or less identical. Therefore, a reference is made to the facts of the case in Criminal Writ Petition No.1444 of 2008. The first respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners and four others alleging commission of an offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The complaint is based on eight cheques issued by M/s.Premier Explochem Limited (the first accused) in favour of the first respondent in discharge of the alleged liability of the said M/s.Premier Explochem Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the said Company"). The petitioners have been arrainged as fifth and sixth accused in the said complaint. As stated earlier, the first accused is the said company. The case of the first respondent made out in the complaint is that the petitioners along with second to fourth accused are the Directors of the said company. The fifth accused (the first petitioner) is alleged to be the Chairman of the said company. It is stated that second and third accused are the Directors of the said company and also signatories to the cheques subject matter of the complaint. It is alleged that the petitioners and second to fourth accused have from time to time negotiated with the first respondent and placed orders for supply of goods. It is alleged that the petitioners and second to fourth accused from time to time promised that the dues of the first respondent will be paid. It is alleged that the petitioners and second to fourth respondents are in-charge and in control of the day to day affairs and management of the said company and they have issued the concerned cheques in consultation with each other. It is alleged that the petitioners and the second to fourth accused take decisions of day to day working of the said company and they are responsible for the conduct of the business of the said company. Further allegation made in the complaint is that the dishonoured cheques were not deposited for some time by the first respondent on instructions of the first petitioner. The first respondent alleged that subsequently on instructions being received from the first petitioner and the second and third accused, the first respondent deposited the cheques and the same were dishonoured.

4. Verification Statement of one Mr.Shyam Manglunia was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 43rd Court, at Boriwali, Mumbai and process was issued against all the accused including the petitioners on 2nd September 2007 for an offence punishable under section 138 of the said Act.

5. The petitioners filed a Revision Application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") before the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, at Dindoshi (Borivali Division) for challenging the order passed by the Magistrate of issuing the process on the private complaint of the first respondent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the said revision application by judgement and order dated 17th June 2008.

6. By these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petiti