'\{ ( 24, 25, 29-40. 42-45, 47 -55, 57-5 8, 60, 62-68, 7 0, 72-95 % r3.09.201 0 Prescnt: Mr. V.K. Shailcndra for the petitioners. + CITIMINAI, REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 49712010. 498/20101 502-513/2010, 515-518/2010, 520-529/2010, 530-531/2010, 533 I 2010, 53 5 -5 4L / 20t0, 5 43 I 20 t0, 5 45 - 5 5g / 2010 + 1 . 'I'hcsc rcvision pctitions arc .directed against the order daled 18th May, 2010 rcfusing to takc cognizance and summon thc accused in cornplaints filcd undcl Scction 138 of the Negotiablc Instruments Act, 1881 (thc Act, lor short). lly thc ;mpugncd ordcr datcd lBtr'May, 2010,learncd tri.rl.court has clismisscd thc cornplaints, intcr alia, holding that no proof of delivery oi noticc rmdcr Scction 138(b) of the Act has bcen placed on rccord. Learncd counscl for thc pctitioncr submits that thc pctitioncr had filcd postal reccipts issucd by thc post clfficc for scnding of noticcs undcr Scction 138 proviso clausc (b) of thc Act. llc rclics upon thc lividencc Act, 1872 and thc (icncral Clauscs Act, 1897. IIe has also placcd rcliance on sevcral .judgrncnts of 1'hc Supremc Courl including V. Ra.iu Kumari versus .P. Suhbarumo Nairlu, (2004) 8 SCC 174 ,and D. Vinod Sltivtqtpa versus Nttndu llelliappa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. IIe submils that the qucstior-r of scrvicc of noticc was not argucd and clucstioned. IIc stales that argr,uncnts wcrc heard on the point of ten'itorial jurisdiction only. IIe submits that in casc thc qucstion of scrvicc of notice had bccn raisod by thc lcarncd trial court, hc would havc rcfcrrcd to and relicd upon the albrcsaid judgrnents and Section 114 of thc llvidcnce Act, 1872 ancl Section 27 of thc Gcncral Clauscs Act, 1897. IIc has drawn my attcntion to earlicr order passed by Iv r e 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 /! this Court in Criminal Rcvision Petition No. 45212010 and other connected cascs on 30tl' August, 2010. 2. In view of the alorcsaid position, the irnpugned ordcr dated 18tl'May, 2010 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learncd'trial court for fiesh hcaring and decision. Learncd counsel for thc petitioner will be cntitled to rcly upon judgrncnts and statutory provisions in support of his cclntcntion. 3. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits kj ancl thc trial court will pass an order without being influenced by the obscrvations made in this ordcr. V 4. Thc pctitioncr will appear before the trial court on 5tl' October, 2010. the petitions are accoldingly disposed of. /L .ttt (. t( SANJIV KHANNA, J. SIIPTEMBEIT 13, 2O1O VKR I <t