AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.

The complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, in complaints filed under S. 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and S. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging an offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused, is the petitioner in the Original Petition, which was filed :

"(i) to declare that in respect of the complaints lodged under S. 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for taking cognizance, the examination of the complainant is not necessary under Sec. 200 of the Cr.P.C.;

(ii) to issue necessary instructions to all the Magistrates in the State of Kerala to take cognizance of the offences under Sec. 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by verifying the complaint and the documents produced by them and the examination of the complainants shall be insisted only if there is any discrepancy between them; and

(iii) to issue necessary instructions to all the Magistrate to give priority to the complaints lodged under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the senior citizens and women".

The writ petition was dismissed by Koshy, J. by judgment dated 20-9-1999. The judgment reads thus :-

"This original petition is filed by the petitioner who filed three criminal complaints against three different persons, namely, Dr. V. Venugopalan, C.J. Vincy and C.J. Joseph on 3-4-1999 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The said complaints as stated in the original petition were posted for taking statements under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the petitioner, such statements are not necessary and he wants a declaration that in respect of complaints lodged under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for taking cognizance, the examination of the complainant is not necessary under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

2. When the case came up for the last time, this Court pointed out that aggrieved parties against whom criminal complaints were raised should be made parties. Now petitioner submits that he will not implied them as it is not necessary. I am not in a position to give a declaration without the contesting respondents are made parties in the case.

The original petition is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's rights".

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the above appeal has been filed.

2. The reliefs prayed for are substantial questions of law, which has far-reaching consequences. Therefore, we heard the matter at length and proceed to consider the submissions made by Mr. P. B. Sahasranaman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Public Prosecutor. We also heard Mr. M. N. Sukumaran Nair, Senior Advocate, who was waiting for some other case in Court.

3. The appellant-petitioner used to advance money to various persons and on that transaction, used to receive cheques and used to lodge complaints under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act if cheque bounces. Accordingly, he has instituted few criminal complaints against different persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, which were also numbered. After the receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate has posted the case on 22-6-1999 for taking sworn statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On that day, the Magistrate has taken the statement and issued summons to the accused. Thereafter the matter was adjourned for taking sworn statement in other cases. According to Mr. Sahasranaman, the examination of the complainant on oath under Section 200, Cr.P.C. is not essential in cases coming under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As per S. 200, Cr.P.C., a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to in writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses by the Magistrate. It is submitted by