I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. With a view to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief.

2. Criminal Writ Petition No. 331 of 2008 has been filed for challenging the order dated 27th December, 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by which an application made by the petitioner under section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) has been rejected. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent under section 138 of the said Act. The application was made by the petitioner contending that in view of sub-section (2) of section 145 of the said Act, the 2nd respondent will have to appear before the Court and his examination-in-chief will have to be recorded with regard to the facts stated in the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief.

3. Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 1170 of 2008, 1171 of 2008 and 1172 of 2008 have been filed by the same petitioner who has been arraigned as an accused in complaints filed by the 2nd respondent in these petitions under section 138 of the said Act. The challenge in these petitions is to the order dated 30th May 2008 by which the similar applications made by the petitioner under subsection (2) of section 145 of the said Act have been rejected.

4. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 738 of 2008, the 2nd respondent is the complainant in a complaint under section 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Here again, the challenge by the petitioner accused is to the order passed on application made by the petitioner under section 145(2) of the said Act.

5. Insofar as Criminal Application No. 2633 of 2008 is concerned, the controversy is somewhat different. This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the accused in a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent under section 138 read with section 141 of the said Act. Here, the challenge is to the order dated 2nd August 2008 passed by the learned Magistrate. In this case evidence was adduced by the complainant by filing an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. The complaimmt stepped into witness box for recording a formal examination-in-chief in which he stated that the contents of the affidavit were as per his personal knowledge. He referred to the list of documents produced separately. In his examination-in-chief, the learned Judge noted that so far as proof of contents of document is concerned that will be decided on totality of evidence. The question of evidentiary value of the said documents was left open and the learned Judge proceeded to exhibit the documents produced by the complainant. An application was made on behalf of the applicants accused contending that it was necessary to decide the issue of relevancy and admissibility of documents tendered by the 2nd respondent complainant at Exhibit P-2 to P-17 and Exhibit P-19 and the said documents be declared as inadmissible. By order dated 2nd August, 2008, the leaned Magistrate rejected the said application by recording that provisions of paragraph 33 of Chapter VI of the Criminal Manual have been complied with. He observed that when the complainant entered the witness box, each and every document came to be exhibited. The learned Judge observed that paragraph 33 of Chapter VI of the Criminal Manual never contemplates a decision on the evidentiary value of the documents at the time of filing them in the Court.

6. The first submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants/petitioners was on the interpretation of section 145(2) of the said Act. It must be stated here that when the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court on the interpretation of section 145(2) in the case of KSL and Industries Ltd vs. Mannalal Khandelwal and another, 2006(1) Mh.LJ. (Cri) 86 = 2005 Cri.L.J.

1201 a