g F. 24, 25, 29 -40, 42-45, 47 -55, 57-5 8, 60, 62-68, 7 0, 7 2-85 % 13.09.2010 Prescnt: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for thc petitioners. + CRIMTNAL IT.EVTSION PETTTIOIN- NOS. 49712010. 498/2010. s02-5t3120 533 I 2010. 53 5 -5 4l I 2010, 5 43 I 201^0, 5 45 - 5 58 / 2010 + 1. l'hcse revision petitions are directed against the order datcd lBtl' May, 2010 refusing to takc cognizance and summon thc accused in complainls filcd undcr Scction 138 of thc Negotiablc Instruments Act, 1881 (thc Act, fol short). Ily thc irnpugned order dated 18tl'May, 2010,lcarncd trial court has disrnissecl thc complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of dclivery of noticc under Scction 138(b) of the Act has been placcd on rccord. Learned counscl for thc petitioncr submits that the petitioner had filcd postal reccipts issued by thc post officc for sending of notices under Section 138 proviso clausc (b) of thc Act. I:[c relies upon the ]lvidence Act, 1872 and the Gcncral Cllauses Act, 1897. Hc has also placed reliance on several judgnrents of the Suprcmc Courl including V. Raia Kumsri versus P. Suhharanto Noitlu, (2004\ 8 SCC 774 and .D. Vinod Slrivappa versus Nsncls lletliappa, (Z)06) 6 SCC 456. I'Ie submits that the clucstion of scrvicc of noticc was not argued and questioncd. IIc states that arguments wcrc hcarcl on the point of territorial jurisdiction only. I-Ie submits that in casc the cluestion of service of notice had been raised by the learned trial court, he would have referred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgrnents and Scction 114 of thc Ilvidcnce Act, 1872'ar';'d Section 27 of the General Clauscs Act, 1897. lle has drawn my attention to carlicr order passed by T ', a 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 , e d tlris Court in Crirninal Revision Petition No. 45212010 and other connectcd cascs on 30tl' August, 201 0. 2. In vicw of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 18th 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 cntitled to rcly upon judgments and statutory provisions in suppoft of his contcntion. 3. It is clarified thet this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits ancl thc trial court will pass an order without being influenccd by the obscrvations rnade in this order. 4. 'fhc pctitioner will appear before the trial court on 5tl'October, 2010. 'fhc petitions arc accordingly disposed of. 1 ,Jr( L- T\/ SANJIV KIIANNA, J. SEPTEMBER 13,2010 VKR + f