.l/ l.i \. 7 a 23, 26^ 27, 28, 47, 46, 56, 59, 6r, 69 & 1 | % 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. + CIIIMTNAL ITEVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 49612010. 49912010. 500/20L0. 501120L0. 51412010. 51912010. 529120t0, 53212010^ 53412010, 542 12010 & 544120L0 + 1. Thcse rcvision 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 Instluments Act, 1881 (the Ac1, for short). By the impugned order dated 18tr'May, 2070,1earned trial courl has clisrnissed the corrplaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of deli'rery of notice under Scction 138(b) of the Act has been placed on record. Learned counsel for thc petitioner submits that the petitioncr had filed postal receipts issued by the post office for sending of notices under Scction 138 proviso clause (b) of the Act. IIe relies upon thc llvidence Act, 1872 and the General Clauses Act, 1897. I-Ie has also placed reliance on several juclgmcnts of the Supreme Court including V Raia Kumuri versus P. Subburums Nnidu. (2004) 8 SCC 774 and D. Virtod Shivappa versus Nsnds Beltiappa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. I'Ie submits that the cluestion ol servicc of notice was not argued and cluestioned. I.Ie submits that if the cluestion of service of notice had been raised by thc lcarned trial court, he would have refencd to and rclied upon the aforesaid judgments and Section 114 of the Dvidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of thc General Clauses Act, 1897. I'Ic has drawn my attention to earlier order passed by this Courl in Crinrinal Itevision Petrtion No.45212010 and other connccted cases ln 30tl' August, 2010. 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 ?7 ?/ 2. In view of the aforesaicl position, the impugnecl order dated 18tr'May, 2010 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned tlial court for frcsh hearing and decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner will be entitled to rely upon judgments and statutory provisions in suppoft of his oontention. 3. It is clarificd that this Court has not expresscd any opinion on merits ancl the tlial court will pass an order without being influenced by the obscrvations made in this order. 4. Ihe petitioner will appear beforc the trial courl on 5tl' October, 2010. Tihe petitions are accordingly disposed of. t;, 4- tt( L - L( SANJIV KHANNA, J.' SEPTEMBER 13, 2O1O VKR J