,.','fa .r1 =' 23, 26, 27, 28, 4I, 46, 56, 59, 6r, 69 8L 7 | % 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioncrs. AL VISION NOS. 0t0. 499120L !7 lF 1 10. 51412010 t20t0 52912010. 53212 53412010" 54212010 & s4412010 * I . 'fhesc revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18tl' May, 2010 refusing to take cognizance and summon the accused in complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrurnents Act, 1881 (the Act, for shorl). By the impugned order dated 18tL May, 2070,lcarned trial court has dismissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of notioe under Section 138(b) of the Act has been placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed postal receipts issucd by the post office for sending of notices under Section 138 proviso clausc (b) of the Act. I-Ie relies upon the Evidence'Act, 1872 and the Generai clauses Act, I8g7. He has also placed reiiarice on several judgmcnts of the Supreme Court including V. Raia Kumuri versus P' Swhbarama Naidu, (2004\ 8 SCC 774 and D. Vinod Shivappa versus Nanda Bettiappu., C2006) 6 SCC 456. FIe subrnits that the question of servicc of notice was not argued and queslioned. I-Ie submits that if the question of service of notice had been raised by the learned trial court, he would have referred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgrnents and section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, IBg1.. IIe has drawn my altention to earlier order passed by this Court in Crirninal Revision petition No. 45212010 and other connected cases on 30tl' August,2010. f { 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 ,-aj} ,)/ 2. In view of the afofesaid position, the impugned order dated l8tL May, 2010 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial courl for fresh hearing and decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner will be entitled to rely upon judgments and statutory provisions in support of his contention. 3. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and the trial court will pass an order without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 4. The petitioner will appear before the trial coutt on 5th October, 2010. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. / ./e .llt ( - [( -. SANJIV KHANNA, J. SEPTEMBER L3,}OIO' VKR v lF '( a