lt'- 33 to 40 & 42to 49 % 30..08.2010 Present: Mr. Vinay Kr. Shailendra, Adv. for the Petitioner' + +st tzorc.M4auzorc. qeztzorc. q$ 12010. 46412010 - 46s12010^ 46612010. 46712010 & 46812010 These revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18th May' 2010 refusing to take cognizance and summon the accused in complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881(Act, for short). ' By the impugned order dated 18tl' May, 2010, the learnecl trial court has dismissed the complaints, inter alia' holding that no proof of delivery of notice under Section 138(b) of the Act has been placed on record' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed postal receipts issued by post offltce for sending notices under Section 1jl ntouito clause (b) of tlre Act. He relies upon the several judgments of the Suprempe eourt including V'Raia Ktmtari vs. P.S ubbaranra Naidu ancl Anotlter, Q004\ 8 SCC 77 4 and D' vinod shivappa vs. Nnttda Belliappa,(200o 6 scc 456. He relies upon the Evidence Act and the General clauses Act. It is submitted that the question of 'service of notices' was not argued and questioned and in this connection he has drawn my attention to the order ddted 2l't April, 2010 passed by the trial courl. The said order-records that arguments were heard onthe point of tegitorial jurisdiction und.urJ#3tia3t.on.O for orders on 15tr'May,2010' Onthe said <late orders were not passed and the cases wele adjourned to 18tl'May, 2010 again for orders. As noticed above, the impugned order was passed on 18tl''May,20i0' In the . impugned orcler, it was noticed and observed by the trial coufi that the question of tenitorial jurisdiction was not being examined in view of the fact that the complaint was bcing dismissed on the ground that there was no proof of delivery/service of notice issued r-rnder Section 138 proviso clause (b) of the Act' I' view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 18tr'May,2010 is hercby set and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court for fresh e. 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 hearing. Petitioner will be entitled to rely upon judgments cited before me before the trial court. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and the trial co,ft will pass an order without being influenced with the observations made in this order' The petitioner will appear before the trial courl on 22nd September, 2010' The petitions are accordingly disposed of' 4^ lt ( -L -'ll \-' SANJIV KHANNA, J. AUGUST 30, 20L0 € J/KR ^