,( rr .a 24, 25, 29 -40, 42-45, 47 -5 5, 57-5 [3, 60, 62-68, 7 0, 7 2-85 % 13.09.2010 Prcscnt: Mr. V.K. Shailcndra for thc petitioncrs. i- CIIIMINAL REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 49712010. 498i2010" 502-513/2010" 515-518/2010, 520-528/2010. 530-53tr/2010. 533/2010. 535-541/2010. 543/2010' 545-558/2010 $ I . 'l'hcsc rcvision petitions are dircctcd against thc ordcr datcd l Btl' May, 2010 rcfusing to takc cognizance and surtmon the accused in complaints filccl undcr Scction 138 of the Ncgotiablc Instrumcnts Act, 1881 (thc Act, for short). lly thc impugnccl order datcd 18tl'May, 2010, lcatncd trial court has clismissecl thc cornplaints, intcr alia, holding that no proof of dclivcry of noticc unclcr Scction 138(lr) of thc Act has been placcd on rccord. Lcarned counscl for thc pctitioncr submits that the pctitioncr had filcd postal receipts issucd by thc post clfficc for scnding of notices undcr Scction 138 proviso clausc (b) of thc Act. IIc rclies upon the llvidencc Act, 1872 and the Gcncral Clauscs Acq 1897. IIc has also placcd rcliancc on scvcral juclgrncnts of thc Suprcmc Court including V. Raia Kumari versus P. Subbarums Nuidtt, (2004) tl SCC 774 and D. Vittod Sltivuppu versus Nsrtdu lletliappu, (2006) 6 SCC 456. IIc submits that thc clucstion of scrvicc of noticc was not argucd and qucstioncd. IIc statcs that arguncnts 1 werc hcard on thc point of tcrritorial jurisdiction only. IIc subnrits that in case the cluestion of scrvicc of notice had been raiscd by thc learned trial coufl, hc would havc refcrrcd to and relied upon thc aforcsaid judgments and Scr:lion 114 of thc llvidcnce Act, 1872 and Scction 27 of the General Clauscs Act, 1U97. Iic has drawn my atlcntion to carlicr order passed by C 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- v t ? tlris Conrt in Crirninal Itcvision Petilion No. 45212010 and other oonnectcd oascs on 30'l' Augttst, 20 10. 2. In view of thc alorcsaid position, the impugned ordcr datcd 18tl'May, 2010 is hereby sct asidc and the matter is remanded back to the learned h'ial c6urt for frcsh hearing and dccision. Lcarned counsel for the petitioner will bc cntitlcd tcl rcly Ltpon judgmcnts and stalutory provisions in suppori of his contcntion 3. It is clarificd that this Court has not cxpressed any opinion on mcrits ancl tfic trial oourt witl pass an order without being influcnocd by the obscrvations uraclc in this ordcr. 4. 'l'hc pctitioncr will appcar beforc thc trial court on 5tl' October, 2010. 'J'hc pclitions arc accordingly disposcd of. -.-/ ll r 'u I (.- LLV. SANJIV KHANNA. J. sIlIlTIti{I}EIr 13. 2010 VKR a t