a { 24, 25 , 29 -40, 42-45 , 47 -55 , 5 7-5 8, 60, 62-68, 7 0, 72-85 % 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailcndra for the petitioners' -I- CI{IMINAL RE,VTSION PETITIOIN NOS. 49712010. 498/2010' s;02-s13/2010. s1s-s18/2010. s20-528l2010. ss0-s3u2010. 533/2010. 535-541/2010. 543/2010. 545-558/2010 + l. 'l'hesc rcvision pctitions are dirccted against thc order datccl 18tl' May, 2010 rcfusing to takc cognizancc and sununon the accuscd in complaints Iilcd undcr Scction 138 of thc Ncgotiablc Instrumcnts Act, 188l (thc Act, for sSort). Ily thc impugncd order datcd 18tr'May, 2010,learned tria,l courl has dismissed the cornplaints, intcr alia, holding that no proof of delivery oi noticc undcr Scction 13S(b) of the Act has bccn placcd on record. Learned counscl for thc pctitioner subrnits that the petitioner had filed postal rcccipts issr-rccl by thc post officc for scnding of noticcs under Scction 138 proviso clausc (b) of thc Act. I-Ie relies upon thc Ilvidcncc Act, 1872 and the Gcncral Clauses Act, 1897. I'Ie has also placed rcliance on scvcral judgrncnts of thc liuprcmc Court including V. Ruia Kumori versus P. Suhbaranm Neilclu, (2004) tt SCC 774 and ,D. Vinod Sltivappa versus Nanclu Relliappo, Q006) 6 SCC 456. IIe submits that the clucstion of scrvicc of notice was not argued and questioncd. IIe states that arguments wer.o hcard on thc point of tcnitorial jurisdiction only. IIe subrnits that in casc the clucstion of scrvicc of notice had been raiscd by thc learncd trial court, hc would have rcfcrred to and rclied upon the aforcsaid judgments and Sdcti<ln 114 of thc Ilviderrce Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauscs Act, 1tJ97. IIe has drawn my altcntion to earlier order passed by f a. e' a 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 f c this courl in criminal Itevision Petition No.45212010 and other connected casss on 30'l'August, 2010. 2. In view of thc aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 18tr'May, 2010 is hercby sct aside and the tnafler is remanded back to the learned trial courl for fresh hearing and decision. Leamed counsel for the pctitioncr will be cntitled to rcly 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 thc trial coutl will pass an ordcr without being influenccd by the obscrvations made in this order' 4. The petitioner will appear before the lrial court on 5'l' October, 20t0. Thc petitions are accordingly disposed of. -4 1 -/L1 .l/ t_ / lL SANJIV KHANNA, J. SEPTEMIIER 13,2010 VKIT f r' ..e l cl