jl1 v v 23, 26, 27, 28, 4r, 46, 56, 59, 61, 69 & 7 r % 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners' + CRIMINAL ITEVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 49612010. 49912010" ' s00lz0h0, s0ll20l0. 51412010, 519/2010, 52912010, 53212010, 53412010. 542 12010 & 544120L0 +' 1. 'I'hese revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18tl' May, 2010 refusing to take cognizance and summon the accused in complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for shorl). By the impugned order dated 18tl'May, z}I},learned trial courl has dismissecl the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of notice under Section 138(b) of the Act has been placed on record' I'sarned counscl for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed postal receipts issucd by the post office for sending of notices under Section 138 ploviso clause (b) of the Act. Ile relies upon the Evidence Act, 1872 and the Gencral clauses Act, t897. FIe has also placed reliance on several judgments of the Supreme Court including V. Raia Kumari versus P' SuhbaramaNaiclu,(2004\8SCC774and'D'VinodShivappaversus Nands Beltiuppa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. I-Ie submits that the cluestion of service of notice was not argued and questioned. I-Ie subrnits that if the question of service of notice had been raised by the learned trial court, he would have refered to and relied upon the aforesaid judgments and Section l14 of thc Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauscs Act, IBg7. I-Ie has drawn rny attention to earlier order passed by this Courl in Criminal Revision Petition No. 45212010 and other connected cases on 30tL August, 2010. J q ! 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 ,tr'{' 2/ 2. In view of the a.foresaid position, the 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 this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and the trial court will pass an order without being influenced by the observationi rnade in this order. 4. Ihe petitioner will appear before the trial court on 5th October, 2010. ' The petitions are accordingly disposed of. K, ''a ( -.1/ '9 .ll I L - tt SANJIV KHANNA. J. SEPTEMBER 13.2010 VKR - t