24, 25, 29-40, 42-45, 47-55, 57-58, 60, 62-68, 70, 72-85 % 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. - 3- CR1IMITNAL REViSION PE1TIO1N NOS. 497/2010, 498/2010, 502-513/201.0, 515-518/2010, 520-528/2010, 530-531/2010, 533/2010, 535-541/2010, 543/2010, 545-558/2010 1. These revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18th May, 2010 refusing to take cognizance and summon the accused in complaints 40 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for. short). By the impugned order dated 1 8111 May, 2010, learned 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 the post office for sending of notices under Section 138 proviso clause (h) of the Act. lie relies upon the Evidence Act, 1872 and the General Clauses Act, 1897. He has also placed reliance on several judgments ol the Supreme Court including V. Ru/a Kumari versus P. Sub hararna JVaidu, L 4IJ_$_CC_ 774 and D. Vinod Shivappa versus Naiida Belliappa, _($CC 456. I Ic submits that the question of service of notice was aot argued and questioned. 1-ic states that arguments were heard on the point of territorial jurisdiction only. He submits that in case 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, 1 872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. He has drawn my attention to earlier order passed by 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 Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 452/2010 and other connected cases on 30th August 2010. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 18111 May, 2010 is hereby set aside and the rnatte.r is remanded hack 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. it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion or merits and the trial court will pass an order without being influenced by the observations made in this order. • .. l.he petitioner will appear before the trial court on 5 tli October, 2010. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. SEPTEM!BFIR 13, 2010 VKR 41