t 1/ 21, 23, 24, 30, 3I, 33-35, 37-39, 4I, 44-51, 55, 56, 6I, 62, 64, 66_69 % 20.09.20t0 Prcsent: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioner. t cRL. REV.P. Nor. 57912010. 581i2010, 582i2010. 588/2010. 589 I 2010, 591 -593 t2010. 59 5-597 t2010, 599 I 2010, 602 -609 /2010, * 61312010.61412010, 61912010, 62012010, 62212010, 624-627t2010 l. 'fhcse rcvision petitions are directed against the order dated lgtl' Muy, 2010 refusing to take cognizance and summon the accused in cornplaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881(Act, for short). By the impugned order datecl 18tl'May, 2010, the learned trial court has dismissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of notice under Section 138(b) of the Act has been placcd on record. 2' Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filcd postal receipts issued by post office for sending notices under Section 138 ploviso clause (b) of thc Act. FIe lelies upon the scveral judgments of tlre Srrprcme Court inoluding V.Rajo Kumari Vs. p.Subbarflma Naielu and Anotlter, Q004) 8 scc 774 and D. vinocr shivappa vs. Nanda Belliappa. (2006) 6 scc 456. FIe relies upon the Evidence Act and the General clauses Act. My attention is drarvn to the order dated ltt May, 2010 by whi<;h the court had adjourned the case to l5tl' May, 2010 for arguments on tenitorial jurisdiction. On l5tl'Moy, 2010 it was recorded that thc order could not be dictated and thc case was adjourned to lgtl' May, 2010 for orders. It is, therefore, apparent that there is an error in the orclcr datcd 15th May, 2010 as arguments were to be addressed on tcrritorial jurisdiction on the said date and the case was not fixed for ordcrs. As noticed above, the impugned order was passed on lgtl'Muy, 2010.In the impugnod order, itwas noticed and observed by the trial court that the question of territorial jurisdiction was not being examined in view t' I 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 V of the fact that the complaint was being dismissed on the ground that there was no proof of dclivery/service of notice issued under Section 138 proviso clause (b) of the Act. 3. In view of the iforesaia.posilion, the impugned order dated l8tl' at^'JL t" Muy, 2010 is hereby set ;and the matter is remanded back to thc lcarncd trial court for fi'esh hearing. Petitioner will be entitled to "ely upon judgments cited before me before the trial court. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and the trial court will pass an order without being influenced with the observations made in this ordcr. 4. The petitioncr will appeal before the trial court on 4tr' October, 20t0. Thc petitions are accordingly disposed of. 1_.1/ (_ SANJIV kHAi'Vl'lh. r. S, SEPTEMBER 2O,2OIO VKR )_