/ ( 24, 25, 29 -40, 42-45,.47-5 5, 57-5 8, 60, 62-68, 7 0, J 2-85 % 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners' + CRIn{INAL nnVtSION pntttIOIN NOS. +gZlzOtO, agSlZOtO. 3120Lil. 515-s 10. 520- s30-s3i/201 1. ;lhcsc rcvision pctitions are directed against the ordcr dated 18tl' May, 2010 rcfusing to take cognizancc and summon the accuscd in complaints filcd undcr Scction 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (thc Act, for short). By thc irnpugned order dated lBtl' May, 2}L},learned trial courl has <lisrnissed the cornplaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of dcl!','cry of noticc undcr Scction 138(b) of the Act has been placed on rccord. Lcarncd counscl for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed postal rcceipts issucd by thc post office for sending of nolices under Section 138 proviso clausc (b) of thc Act. I"Ic relies upon thc lividcncc Act, 1872 and the Gcncral Clauses Act, 1897. I{e has also placcd rcliance on scveral judgmcnts of the Supreme Court including V. Raia Kumsri versus P. Subbursms Nsitlu, (2004) 8 SCC 774 and D. Vinod Shivappa versus Nsncla Beltiappa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. IIe submits that the cluestion o!' scrvicc of notice was not argued and questioned. IIe states that arguments wcrc hcard on thc point of tenitorial jurisdiction only. IIe subrnits that in casc thc cluestion of service of notice had been raised by the learned trial court, he would have referred to and rclied upon the aforesaid judgrnents and Scction 114 of thc Iividcnce Act, 1872 and Section 27 o'f the General Clauscs Act, 1897. Itc has drawn rny attention to earlier ordcr parscd by a- 533/2010. 535-54L/201.0. 543/20L0. 545-558/2010 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 ,1. ,t'a this Court in Crirninal Ilevision Petition No. 45212010 and othcr connected cascs on 30tl'August, 2010. 2. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned orcler dated 18tl'May, 2010 is hcreby set aside and the rnatler is remanded back to the learned trial court fo. n'"r}1 hearing and decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner will be entitled to rely upon judgments and statutory provisions in support of his v contcntton. 3. It is clarified that this Courl has not expressed any opinion on merits ancl thc trial courl will pass an order without being influenccd by thc ot'rscrvations made in this order. - a 'l'he petitioncr will appear before the trial court on 5tl' October, 2010' \{ -'' 1'hc pctitions arc accordingly disposed of. -4 ts ./L" , l/ / L/( SANJIV KHANNA, J. SIII'TEMBRII 13, 2O1O VKR ,€ q,