IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 862 OF 2007 Mr Anil Shantaram Sharma .. Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr Ganesh Gole, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs S. D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. CORAM : A.R. JOSHI,J. DATED : 26th March,2009. DATED : 26th March,2009. DATED : 26th March,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner(original accused) has challenged the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 30th Court, Kurla, Mumbai under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the N.I.Act for short). 2. During the arguments, Shri Ganesh Gole, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-original accused has submitted that such application under Section 145(2) of the Code was preferred under the belief that certain documents produced by the original complainant (respondent No.2) during the trial of C.C. No. 10334/SS/05 (for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act) could be taken as proved by the Court and as such he wants to challenge the said documents by asking for examination-in-chief of the complainant under the provisions of Section 145(2) of the Act. 3. In the opinion of this Court such plea of the applicant is erroneous as to the documents filed alongwith the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief can be taken as gospel truth. Needless to mention that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate will deal with the evidential value of the documents as per the Indian Evidence Act. Considering the scope of this Court under the writ jurisdiction, which is mainly under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., there is nothing to interfere with the said impugned order. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed as misconceived. 4. Earlier stay if any granted to the pending proceeding before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is vacated. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (A.R.JOSHI,J.)