f*r- J a 24, 25, 29-40, 42-45, 47 -55, 57-5g, 60, 62-69, 70, 72-95 % r3.09.2010 Prcsent: Xft. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. CRIMTNAL REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 49712010, 498/2010, 502-513/2010. 515-519/2010, 520-529/2010, 530-531/2010. 533 I 20t0, 53 5 - 5 4I I 2010, 5 43 / 2010. 5 45 - 5 58 / 20 t0 * I . 'I hese rcvision petitions are directed against the order dated 18tl' May, 2010 rcfusing to take cognizance and summon the accused in complaints filed under Scction 138 of the Negotiable Inslruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for shori). By the impugned order datcd 18th May, z}l},lcarned trial court has disrnissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of noticc under Section 138(b) of the Act has been placcd on rccord. Lcarned counscl for the petitioner subrnits that the petitioncr had filed postal receipts issued by thc post office for sending of notices under Scction 138 proviso clausc (b) of thc Act. [Ic relies upon the l]vidcncc Act, 1872 and the Gcncral Clauses Act, l8g7. I{e has also placcd rcliancc on scvcral judgrncnts of the supremc Court including v. Roja Kumari versus p. Subbursma Naidu, (2004) 8 SCC 774 and D. Vinod Shivappa versus Nanda Belliappa, (2006) 6 .SCC 456. I{e subrnits that the question of service of notice was not argued and questioned. I=Ie states that arguments were heard on thc point of territorial jurisdiction only. I-Ie submits that in casc thc question of service of notice had been raised by the learned hial court, he would have referred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgments and Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the Gcneral Clauscs Act, 1897. I-Ie has drawn rny attcntion to earlier order passed by F.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 i -:ri rd ,> "l this Courl in Criminal Revision Petition No. 45212010 and other connected cases on 30tl'August, 2010. 2. In view of the aforesaid position, thc impugned order dated 18tl' May, 2010 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back 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. 3. It is clarified that th,is 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 courl on 5th October, 2010. Thc petitions are accordingly disposed of. --/ t -' q ,// / t-lt- SEPTEMBER 13.2010 VKR SANJIV KIIANNA. J. {