GEETA MARINE SERVICES PVT LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.