+- 'i' .j 24, 25, 29 -40, 42-45, 4l -5 5, 57 -58, 60, 62-68, 7 0' 7 2-85 % 13.09.2010 Prcscnt: Mr. V.K. Shailcndra for thc petitioncrs' -I. C'ITTMINAL RIi,VISION PETITTOIN NOS. 49712010. 498/2010. 502-513/2010. 515-518/2010" 520-528/2010. 530-531/2010' 533/2010, 535-541/2010, 543/2010. 545-558/2010 + I . l'hcsc rcvision pctitions are dircctcd against the ordcr dated 18tl' May, 2010 rcfusing io takc cognizancc and surunon the accuscd in con"plaints filcd undcr Scctiol 138 of thc Negotiablc Instruments Act, 1881 (thc Ac1, for shor-t). Ily ttrc irnpugncd order datcd l titl' May, 20l0,1carncd trial court has clismisscct thc cornplaints, intcr alia, holding that no proof of dclivcry of noticc undcr Scction 138(b) of thc Act has bccn placcd on rccor'd. Lcarned counscl for thc pctilioncr submits that thc pctitioncr had filcd poslal receipts issucd by the post officc for scnding of notices undcr Section 138 proviso clausc (b) of the Act. IIc rclics upon thc lividence Act, 1872 and the (icncratl Clauscs Act, 1897. IIe has also placcd rcliancc on scvcral jr,rclgmcnts of thc Suprcnrc Court including V. Ruio Kumari versus P. Subharama Naiclu, (2004) tt -SCS-1J{. and D. Vinocl Shivappa versus Nands lleltiappa, (28!O 6 SCC 456. IIe subrnits that the cluestion of scrvicc of noticc was not argtrcd and qucstioned. IIc statcs that argurnents wcro hcard on thc point of tcrritorial jurisdiction only. IIc subrnits that in casc thc clucsticln o[ scrvicc of noticc had bcon raised by thc lcarnt-:d trial court, he would havc rcfcrrcd to and rclicd upon thc aforcsaid judgments and Scction 114 of thc Evidcnce Act, lB72 and Scction 27 of the Gcncral Clauscs Act, 1897. lIc has drawn rny attcntion to earlicr ordcr passcd by i7 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 a\.l this Cor-rrt in Criminal l{cvision Petition No. 45212010 and othcr connected cascs on 30rl' Attgust, 2010. 2. 1'r vicw of the aforcsaid position, thc impugned order clatcd lBtl'May, 2010 is hereby sct asidc and the mattel is remanded back to the learned trial court for frcsh hcaring and deoision. Leatned counsel for the petitioncr will be cntitlccl to rcly Llpon judgrncnts and statutory provisions in support of his contcntion. 3. It is ctarificcl that this Courl has not expressed any opinion on merits and thc trial oourl will pass an order without being influenced by the J obscrvations nraclc in this ordcr. 4. l'hc petitioncr will appcar beforc thc trial courl on 5tl' October, 2010. ! 'l'hc pctitions arc accordingly disposcd of. -// lt L a. -'tt SANJIV KHANNA, J. slilrTllMl]Elt 13,20L0 VKIT .'l'