/ ) 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. -+ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 497/2010, 49R/2010, 502-513/2010, 515-518/2010, 520-528/2010, 530-53112010, 533/2010, 535-54112010, 543/2010, 545-558/2010 * 1. These revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18th May, 20 I 0 refusing to take cognizance and summon the accused in complaints filed under Section 13 8 of the N egotiablc Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short). By the impugned order dated 18th May, 2010, learned trial court has dismissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of deli very of notice under Section 13 8(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 (b) of the Act. Ile relies upon the Evidence Act, 1872 and the General Clauses Act, 1897. He has also placed reliance on several judgments of the Supreme Court including V. Raja Kumari versus P. Subharama Naidu, Q004) 8 SCC 774_ and D. Vinod Shivappa versus Nanda Belliappa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. lie submits that the question of service of notice was not argued and questioned. lie 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 would have refciTed to and relied upon the aforesaid judgments and Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 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. 2. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 18th May, 20 10 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court for fresh hearing and decision. I .,earned counsel for the petitioner will be entitled to rely upo11 judgments and statutory provisions in support of his contention. 3. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and the trial court will pass an order without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 4. The petitioner will appear before the trial court on 5th October, 2010. The petitions arc accordingly disposed of. S:EPTEMBER 13,2010 VKR ·!l (_. SANJIV KHANNA, J.