.r 24, 25,29-40,42-45,47-55,57-58,60, 62-68,70, 72-85 j % 13.09.2010 Present: Mi. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. + CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIQIN NOS. 497/2010, 498/2010, 502-513/2010, 515-518/2010. 520-528/2010, 530-531/2010, 533/2010, 535-541/2010, 543/2010, 545-558/2010 1. Theserevisionpetitionsare directedagainstthe orderdated IS"^ May, 2010 refusing to take cognizanceand summon the accused in complaints filed under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstrumentsAct, 1881 (the Act, for short). By the impugnedorderdated 18^''May, 2010, learnedtrial court has dismissedthe complaints,interalia, holdingthat no proofof deliveryof noticeunder Scction138(b)of the Act has been placedon record. Learned counselfor the petitionersubmitsthat the petitionerhad filed postalreceipts issued by the post office for sendingof notices under Scction 138 proviso clausc (b) of the Act. lie relies upon the Evidence Act, 1872 and the General Clauses Act. 1897. He has also placed reliance on several judgments of the Supreme Court including K Ra}a Kiimari versus P. Subharama Naidu, C20041 8 SCC 774 and i). Vinod Shivappa versus Nanda BellUippa, (20061 6 SCC 456. He submits that the question of servicc of notice was not argued and questioned. He states that arguments were heard on the point of territorialjurisdictiononly. He submitsthat in case the questionof service of notice had been raised by the learned trial court, he would have refen-ed to and relied upon the aforesaid judgments and Scction 114 of the Kvidence Act, 1872 and Scction 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. He has drawn my attention to earlier order passed by 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 CriminalRevisionPetitionNo. 452/2010and other connected caseson 30"^ August,2010. 2. In view ofthe aforesaidposition,the impugnedorderdated 18' May, 2010 is herebyset asideand the matteris remandedbackto the learnedtrial court for fresh hearingand decision. Learnedcounselfor the petitionerwill be entitledto rely uponJudgmentsand statutoryprovisionsin supportofhis contention. 3. It is clarifiedthatthis Courthas not expressedany opinionon merits and the trial court will pass an order without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 4. The petitionerwill appearbeforethe trialcourton 5^^ October,2010. The petitionsarc accordinglydisposedof SANJIV KHANNA, J. SEPTEMBER 13,2010 VKR