What is the import and consequence of the amendment to S. 202 Crl. P.C by Act 25 of 2005 w.e.f 23.6.06 by which the words “and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction” were introduced ? Is the stipulation couched in the above language directory or mandatory ? Does that stipulation apply at all to prosecutions under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? If the sworn statement of all necessary witnesses cited by the complainant is recorded under S.200 Crl.P.C and the materials are sufficient to induce the requisite satisfaction in the mind of the learned Magistrate that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, should the learned Magistrate still proceed to the stage of S.202 Crl. P.C and conduct a further enquiry ? What would be the content and scope of such an extended enquiry in such circumstances ? When does the enquiry under S.200 Crl. P.C end and the enquiry under S.202 Crl. P.C commence ? Is the boundary line between the enquiry under S.200 Crl. P.C and 202 Crl. P.C so firm, definite, stable and specific ? These questions arise for consideration in these cases.

2. These questions have been raised