\J t 24, 25, 29 -40, 42-45, 47 -55, 57-5 8, 60, 62-68, 7 0, 7 2-85 % 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. +- CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 49712010. 498/2010. 502-513i2010. 515-518/2010. 520-528/2010. 530-531/2010' 533/20 1, 0. 535-541/201. 0. 543/20 L 0. 545-558/201, 0 J 1. "I'hcse revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18th May, 2010 refusing to take cognizance and summon the accuscd in complaints filed undcr section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for shorl). Ily the impugned order dated 18tl'May, 2}I},learned trial court has dismissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of notice undcr Scctior 138(b)'of the Act has been placed on record' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed postal receipts issucd by the post office for sending of notices under Section 138 proviso clausc (b) of thc Act. FIe relies upon the llvidence Act, 1872 and the General clauses Act, I8g7. I{e has also placcd reliance on several judgrncnts of the supreme courl including v. Raia Kumsri versus P. Subborsmu Naiclu, (2004) 8 SCC 774 and D. Vinod Shivappa versus Nancla Belliappct, [2000 6 SCC 456. IIe submits that thc queslion of service of notice was not argued and cluestioned. FIe states that arguments wet.c heard on the point of tenitorial jurisdiction only. I'Ie submits that in case the question of service of notice had been raised by thc learned trial courl, hc woulcl have referred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgments and Section 114 of thc Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauscs Act, 1897. IIe has drawn my attention to earlier order passed by t 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 al r & this Courl 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 18'l'May, 2010 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court for frcsh hearing and decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner will be entitled to rely upon judgrnents and statutory provisions in supporl of his contention. 3. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and the trial court will pass an order without being influenced by the obselvations made in this ordcr. 4. The petitioner will appear before the trial court on 5th October, 2010. The petitions ale accordingly disposed of. -/1 "L1 -)l( L- /' SANJIV KHANNA, J. SEPTEMBER 13,2O1O VKR / ! :