\* 24, 25, 29 -40, 42-45, 47 -5 5, 57-5 g, 60, 62_69, 7 0, 7 2_g5 % 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 49712010. 498/2010. 502-513/2010. 515-5t8/2010. 520-528/2010. 530-53t/2010, 533 /20 10. 53 5 -5 4t / 2010. 5 43 I 2010, 5 45 _ 559 / 20 l0 t( 1. 'I'hesc rcvision pctitions are directed against the order dated 18tl' May, 2010 refusing to take cognizance and summon the accused in complaints filcd undcr Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for shorl). By the irnpugned order dated 18th May, 2}r},learned trial courl 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. Learned counsel for thc petitioncr subrnits that the petitioner had filed postal rcceipts issucd by the post office for scnding of notices under Section 138 proviso clausc (b) of thc Act. I-Ie relies upon the Evidence Act, rg72 and. the Gcneral Clauses Act, 1897. He has also placed reliance on several judgrncnts of the Supreme Court including V. Raja Kuntari versus p. Subbursma Noidu, (2004\ 8 SCC 774 and D. Vinotl Shivappa versus Nanda llelliappa, (2c06) 6 SCC 456. I"Ie submits that the question of selicc of notice was not argued and questioned. I-Ie states that argurnents were heard on the point of tenitorial jurisdiction only. IIe subrnits that in case the question of service of notice had been raised by the lcarned trial court, he would have referred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgments and Scction 114 of thc Ilvidcnce Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 189'1. I-Ie has drawn my attention to earlier order passed by \4. 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 ! -9:- V this Courl in Criminal Revision Petition No.45212010 and other connected cases on 30tl'August, 2010. 2. In view of the aforesaid position, the irnpugned order dated lgtl'May, 2010 is hcreby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial coutl for fresh hearing and decision. Learned counscl 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 rnade in this order. 4. The petitioner will appear before the trial court on 5tl' October. 2010. The petitions arc accordingly disposed of. SANJIV KIIANNA. J. SEPTEMBER 13.2010 VKR t .{