I 'ti 24, 25, 29 -40, 42-45, 47 -5 5, 57-5 8, 60, 62-68, 7 0, 72-85 % 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. + CIIIMINAL REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 49712010. 498/2010, 502-513/2010, 515-518i2010. 520-528/2010. 530-531/2010. 533/2 0 I 0, 535-54I I 2010, 5 43 120 1 0. 545-558/20 I 0 1 . -l'hcsc rcvision petitions are directed against the order dated J 8th May, 2010 rcfusing to takc cognizance and summon the accuscd in complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (thc Act, for shorl). By thc impugned order dated 18tl'May, 20l0,1earned trial courl has disrnissed the complaints, iriter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of noticc under Scction 138(b) of the Act has been placed on record. Leamed counscl for thc pctitioner submits that thc petitioner had filed postal receipts issucd by the post officc -fior sending of notices under Section 138 proviso clausc (b) of the Act, FIe relies upon the Evidence Act, 1872 and the General Clauscs Act, 1897. He has also placcd reliance on scveral judgmcnts of the Supreme Court including V. Raja Kumari versils.P. Subhsrsmo Nsidtt, (2004) 8 SCC 774 and ,D. Vinod Sltivuppu versus Nondu lleltiappa, (20q6) 6 SCC 456. Ife submits that the clucstion of service of notice was not argued and questioned. He states that arguments wcrc h6ard on the point of tenitorial jurisdiction only. I{c submits that in casc the question of service of notice had been raised by the learned trial court, he wouid have referred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgments and Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. FIe has drawn my attention to earlier order'passcd by I J -. 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 this Courl in Crirninal Revision Petition No. 45212010 and other connectcd cases on 30tl'August', 2010. 2. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 18tl'May, 2010 is hereby set aside and the maffer is remanded back to the learned trial court for fresh hearing and decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner will be entitled to rely upon judgments and statutory provisions in support of his contention. a 3. It is clarified that this Court has not cxpressed any opinion on merits and the lrial court will pass an order without being influenced by the obscrvations made in this order. 4. The petitioner v,,ill appear before the trial court on 5th October, 2010. l'hc pctitions arc accordingly disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA. J. SEPTEMBER 13,2O1O VKR J a.