7 6 -r 24, 25, 29 -40, 42-45, 47 -55, 57-5 g, 60, 62-69, 7 0, 7 2-95 % 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. CRIMINAI, REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 49712010, 493/2010. 502-513/2010. 515-519/2010" 520-529/2010" 530-531/2010. 533 / 2010. 53 5 -5 4'1, I 201 0, 5 43 / 20 10. 5 45 - 5 5g / 2010 1. 'I'hese revision petitions are directed against the order datcd 18tl' May, 2010 rcfusing to take cognizance hnd summon the accused in complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short). By the impugned order dated l8tl'May, z}r},leamed trial court has dismissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of noticc under Section 138(b) of the Act has been placed on record. Lcarncd counscl for thc pctitioner subrnits that the petitioner had filed postal receipts issucd by thc post office for sending of notices under Section 138 proviso clause (b) of the Act. I{e relies upol1 the Evidence Act, 1872 and the Gencral Clauses Act, 1897. FIe has also placcd reliance on several jucigmcnts of the supremc cgurt including v. Raja Kumari versus p. Subburama Naidu, (2004\ 8 SCC 774 and D. Vinort Shivappa versus Nanda llelliappa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. I-Ie submits that the question of service of notice was not argued and questioned. I-Ie states that arguments werc heard on the point of temitorial jurisdiction only. I-Ie subrnits that in case thc question of service of noticc had been raised by the learned trial court, he would have referred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgrnents and Section 114 of thc Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. IIe has drawn rny attention to carlier order passed by ,j (" 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 i ?; @ her connected J this Court in Crirrinal Revision Petition No.45212010 and ot cases on 30thAugust, 2010. 2. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 18tL 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 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. Thc petitioner will appear before the hial court on 5'l' october, 2010. fhc pctitions are accordingly disposed of. A-,1(t- SEI'TEMBER 13.2010 VI(R SANJIV KHANNA, J.