/t' ,: I a, 24, 25, 29 -40, 42-45, 47 -5 5, 57-5 8, 60, 62-68, 7 0, 72-85 % 13.09.2010 / Prcsent: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. t- CRIMINAL REVTSION PETITIOIN NOS. 49712010. 498/2010. 502-513/2010, 515-518/2010" 520-528/2010, 530-531/2010. 533i2010. 535-541i2010. 543/2010. 545-559/2010 + 1. These revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18tl' May, 2010 rcfusing to takc cognizance and summon the.accused in complaints filcd undcr Scction 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short). By the impugned order dated 18tl'May, 2}I},lcarncd trial court has dismissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery oi noticc under Section 138(b) of the Act has been placed on record. Learned counscl for the petitioncr submits that the petitioner had filcd postal receipts issued by thi post office for sending of notices under Section 138 proviso clausc (b) of the Act. I-Ie relies upon the Evidence Act, 1872 and the General Clauses Act, 1897. He has also placed reliance on several judgrncnts of thc Supreme Court including V. Raja Kumsri versus P. Subbsrsma Naidu, (.2004\ 8 SCC 774 and, D. Vinod Shivappu versus Nonda llelliappa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. I-Ie submits that the question of service of notice was not argued and questioncd. He states that arguments were heard on the point of territorial jurisdiction only. I-Ic submits that in case thc question of service of notice had been raised by the learned trial coutl, he would have referred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgrnents and Scction 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauscs Act, 1897. I:Ie has drawn my attention to carlier order passed by { ( 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 tL'- i^t' this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.45212010 and other connected cases on 30tl'August, 2010. 2. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 18th May, 2010 is hcreby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial coutt for fresh hearing and decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner will be entitled to rely upon judgments and statutory provisions in support of his ontcntion. 3. It is clarificd that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits ) and the trial courl will pass an order without being influenced by the observations made in this order. { 4. The petitioner will appear before the trial court on 5tn October, 2010. -'I'he petitions are accorditrgly disposed of. ttZ-, 'l/ ( L LL \- SEI'TEMBER 13,2010 SANJIV KHANNA' J. VKR a a