24, 25, 29-40, 42-45, 47-55, 57-58, 60, 62-68, 70, 72-85 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. ± CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 497/2010, 498/201011 502-513/2010, 515-518/2010, 520-528/2010, 530-531/2010, 533/2010, 535-541/2010, 543/2010, 545-558/2010 * 1. These revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18th May, 2010 refusiflg to take cognizance and summon the accused in complaints filed underSection 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for shoi). 1 1 .3y the impugned order dated 18th May, 2010, learned trial court has disniissd the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of notice under Section 1 3 8(b) of the Act has been placed on record. Learned counsel 1or the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed postal receipts issued by the post office for sending of notices under Section 138 proviso clause (b) of the Act. i-Ic relies upon the Evidence Act, 1872 and the General Clauses Act, 1897. He has also placed reliance on seveial judgments of the Supreme Court including V. Ru/a Kumari versus P. Subbarama Naidu, (2004) 8 SCC 774 and D. Vinod Sliivappa versus Nanda Blliappa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. He submits that the question of 4 service of notice was not argued and questioned. He states that arguments were heard on the point of territorial jurisdiction only. He submits that in case the qestion of service of notice had been raised by the learned trial court, he would have referred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgmehts and Seetkn I i 4 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses jct, 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 Criminal Revision Petition No. 452/2010 and other connected cases on 30thi August, 2010. 2. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 18th May, 2010 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court for fresh hearing and decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner will • he 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 infiienced by the observations made in this order. 4. The petitioner will appear before the trial court on 5th October, 2010. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. SANJIV KIIANNA, J. SEPTEMBER 113, 2010 VKR