'.'( ] 24, t 5, 29 -40, 42-45, 47 -5 5, 57 -58, 60, 62-68, 7 0, 7 2-85 % 13.09.2010 Prcsent: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the pctitioncrs- -I- CIIIMINAL REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 49712010. 498/2010. 502-513/2010. 515-518/2010. 520-528/2010, 530-531/2010. * 1. 'l'hese revision pctitions arc dircctcd against thc ordcr datcd 18tl' May, 2010 rcfusing to take cognizancc and suuunon the accused in cornplaints filcd undcr Scction 138 of thc Negotiablc Instrumcnts Act, 1881 (the Act, for short). Ily thc impugncd-order datcd 18tr'May, 2010,lcarncd trial court has clismissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of noticc undcr Scction 138(b) of the Act has been placcd on record. Lcarned counscl for the pctitioncr submits that the petitioner had filed postal reccipts issucd by thc posl off.cc for sending of notices undcr Scction I38 proviso clausc (b) of thc Act. -LIc rclies upon the llvidcnce Act, 1872 and the Gcncral Clauscs Ac1, f897. I-Ic has also placcd rcliancc on sovcral judgrncnts of thc Supremc Courl including V. Raja Kumari verst'ts P. Suhbaromu Naidu, (.?004\ 8 SCC 774 and D. Vinod Sltivappa versus Nundt llelliappa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. I-Ie subrnits that thc qr-rcstion of scrvicc of notice was not argued and questioned. I-Ie states that arguments werc hcatd on thc poiirt of teritorial jurisdiction only. IIc submits that in casc thc cluestion of servicc of noticc had been raised by the learned trial cour1, he would have rcfcrrcd to and relied upon the aforcsaid judgrnents and Sccti<ln I 14 of the Evidence Act, I Bl2 and Seotion 27 of the General Clar"rscs Aot, 1897. IIc has drawn rny attention to carlier ordcr passcd by fD- \ 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 F this Court in Crirninal I{cvision Petition No. 45212010 and other connectcd cascs on 30th August, 2010. 2. In vicw of tlie aforesaid position, the,impugned order clated 18'l'May, 2010 is l-rcrcby set asidc and the matter is remanded back to the learned triai court for fi'esh hcaring and dccision. Learned counsel for thc pctitioner will bc cntitled to rely upon judgrnents and statutory provisions in support of his contcntion. 3. [t is clarified that this Courl has not expressed any opinion on merits and thc trial court will pass an ordcr without being influenced by the obscrvations made ,n this order. 4. I'hc pctilioner will appear before the trial courl on 5th October, 2010. I'hc petilions arc accordingly disposed of. 4. 'll (- L|_ SANJIV KHANNA, J. SIIPTEMI}ER T3. 2O1O VKR >. \