24,25,29-40, 42-45, 47-55, 57 -5g, 60, 62-68,70,72-g5 % 13.09.2010 Prcsent: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. +. CIIIMINAL REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 497/2OIO. 498/2010. 502-513i2010. 515-518/2010. 520-528/2010. 530-531/2010. 533/2010, 535-541/2010. 543/2010. 545-558/2010 + 1. 'I'hesc revision petitions are directed against thc ordcr dated 18th May, 2010 rcfusing to take cognizance and surlmon thc accuscd in complaints filcd undcr Scction l3B of thc Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short). Ily thc impugncd ordcr datcd 18tr'May, 2010,lcarncd trial courr; has dismissccl the cornplainls, inter alia, holding that no proof of dclivery of notioc undcr Scction 138(b) of thc Act has been placcd on record. Learned counscl for the pctitioncr submits that thc pctitioner had filed postal rcccipts issr-rcd by thc post officc for sending of noticcs under Section 138 proviso clausc (b) of thc Act. IIc rclies upon the llvidence Act, 1872 and thc Gcncral Clauscs Act, 1897. IIe has also placed rcliance on several judgrncnts of thc Suprcme Court including V. Raja Kumuri versus P. Suhbarsma Nsitlu" (2004) 8 SCC 774 and D. Vinod Shivappa versus Nanda llelliappa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. I-Ic subrnits that the cluestion of servicc of noticc was not argucd and questioncd. IIe states that argurnents werc hcard on the point of tenitorial jurisdiction only. He submits that in casc thc question of scrvicc of notice had been raised by the lcarned trial court, hc would have referred to and relied upon the aforcsaid jucigrnents and Scction 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the Generai Clauscs Act, 1897. IIe has drawn rny attcntion to earlier ordcr passed by t ./ 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 this Court in Crirninal Rcvision Pctition No. 45212010 ancl other conncctcd cases on 30tl'August, 2010. 2. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated lgtl'May, 2010 is hereby set aside and the rnatter is remanded back to the learned trial court for fiesh hcaring and deeision. Learned counscl for the petitioner will be entitled to rcly upon judgrnents and statutory provisions in support of his contcntion. 3. It is clarified that this Court has not expresscd any opinion on rnerits ancl thc trial courl will pass an order without being influenccd by the obscrvations made in this order. 4. I'hc petitioner will appear before the trial courl on 5tl' Oclober, 2010. 'I'he petitions arc accordingly disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. SEPTEIVIBER 13. 2O1O VKIT t \J {