21,23,24,30,31,33-35,37-39, 41, 44-51, 55, 56, 61, 62, 64, 66_69 % 20.09.20t0 Plescnt: rMr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioner. REV.P. 10. 58 10. 591- 10.595-597 s99t20r I 613 I 2010.61 4 I 2010. 619 | 2010, 620 I 2010. 622 | 2010, 62 4-627 I 2010 l. 'I'hcsc revision 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, 188l(Act, for short). By the impugned order dated l8d'May, 2010, the lcarned trial court has dismissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of dclivery of notice under Section 138(b) oftheActhas beenplaced on rccord. 2. Learncd counsel fur the petitioner submits thal the petitioner had filed postal receipts issued by post office for sending notices under Section I 38 proviso clause (b) of the Act. He relies upon the several judgments of the Suprcrnc Couit including V.Raju Kumari Vs. p.Suhbaratna Nsiclu and Anotlrer, (2004\ 8 scC 774 and D.vinorl shivappa vs. Nonda Ilelliappa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. He relies upon the Evidence Act and the Gcnclal clauses Act. My attention is drawn to the order dated lrt May, 2010 by which the courl had adjoumed the case to 15tl' May, 2010 for arguments on tenitoriaijurisdiction. on 15tl'Muy, z0l0 itwas recorded that the order could not be dictated and the case was adjourned to lgtl' Muy, 2010 for orders. It is, therefore, apparent that there is an eror in the or<Jcr dated l5tlt May, 2010 as arguments were to be addresscd on tcrritorial jurisdiction on the said date and the case was not fixed for ordcrs. As noticed above, the impugned order was passcd on lgtl'Muy, 2010. In thc impugned order, itwas noticed and obsen ecl by the trial court that the qucstion of territorial jurisdiction was not being examined in view \rj :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 /, of the fact that the ccmplaint was being dismissed on the ground that there was no proof of. delivery/service of notice issued under Section 138 proviso clause (b) of the Act. 3. In view of the aforesai$jroqition, the impugned order dated 18th Muy, 2010 is hereby set }*and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court for fi'esh hearing. Petitioner will be entitled to rely upon judgments cited before me beforc the trial courl. It is clarified that this Court has no1 exprcssed any opinion on merits and the trial court will pass an orclcr witnout being influenced with the observations made in this ordcr. 4. Thc petitioner will appear before the trial court on 4tl' october, 20t0. T'hc pctitions are accordingly disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA. J. SEPTEMBER 20,2010 VKIT tb) 1 t\