'r 24, 25, 29 -40, 42-45, 47 -5 5, 57-5 8, 60, 62-68, 7 0, 7 2-85 % 13.09.2010 . Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for thc petitioncrs. t- CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 49712010. 498/2010. 502-513/2010. 515-518/2010. 520-528i2010" 530-531/2010. 533/2010. 535-s41i2010. 543i2010. 545-558/2010 + 1 . 'fhcsc rcvision petitions are directed against thc orclcr dated 18tl' May, 2010 rcfusing to takc cognizance and suffrmon the accused in conrplaints filccl undcr Scction 13tt of the Ncgotiablc Instruments Act, 1881 (the Ac1, fol short). Ily thc impugncd order dated lBtl'May, 2010,learned trial court has clismisscd thc complainls, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of noticc undcr Scction 138(b) of thc Act has been placcd on rccord. Learned counscl for thc petitioner submits that thc pctitioner had filed postal receipts issucd by the post office for sending of notices undcr Scotion 138 proviso clausc (b) of thc ,\ct. I-Ie relies upon the llvidence Act, 1872 and thc Gcncral Clauses Act, 1897. FIe has also placed reliancc on severai judgnrcnts of the Supreme Courl including V. Raio Kumari versus P. Srthhsrsms Naidu, (2004) 8 SCC 774 and "D. Vinod Shivappu versus Nandu ltelliuppa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. IIe subrnits that thc clucstion of servicc of noticc was not argucd and cluestioncd. IIc statcs that argurnents wcrc hcard on the point of tcnitorial jurisdiction only. Ile submits that in casc thc qucstion cf service of notice had been raised by the learned trial court, he would havc rcferrcd to and relied upon the aforesaid judgrnents and Scction 1 14 of thc }lvidcnce Act, I 872 and Section 27 of the Gcneral Clauses Act, 1897. IIe has drawn my attention to earlicr order passed by a (t a Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 4 tlris Court in Crirninal Ilevision Petition No. 45212010 and other connected cases cln 30tl'August, 2010. 2. In view of th.e afbresaid position, the impugned order dated 18tl'May, 2010 is hercby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial courl for fresh hearing and decision. Leamed oounsel for the petitioner will be cntitled to rcly upon judgments and stalutory provisions in support of his contcntion. 3. It is clarified that this Court has not exprcssed any opinion on merits ancl the trial courl will pass an order without bcing influenccd by the obscrvations made in this order. 4. Ihe petitioner will appear before thc trial courl on 5tl'October, 2010.' Thc pctitions are accordingly disposcd of. /(-, ,l/ L (.' t\ SANJIV KHANNA, J. SEI'TEMBER 13. 2O1O VKR I (, a