e) 24, 25, 29 -40, 42-45, 47 -5 5, 57-5 8, 60, 62-68, 7 0, 7 2-85 % 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. .}. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 49712010. 498/2010. 502-513/20L0. 515-518/2010. 520-528i2010. 530-53tr/2010" 533/2010. 535-541/2010" 543/2010. 545-558/2010 g 1 . 'I'hcse rcvision petitions are directed against the order dated 18th May, 2010 rcfusing to takc cognizance and sununon thc accuscd in cornplaints filcd under Scction 138 of the Negotiablc Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short). By thc impugned order dated 18tr'May, 2}I},learned trial court has disrnisscd thc complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery o[ noticc under Section 138(b) of the Act has been placed on record. Learncd counscl for thc pctitioner subrnits that the petitioncr had filed postal receipts issucd by the post officc for sending of notices under Scction 138 proviso clausc (b) of thc Act. I-Ie relies upon the Ilvidence Act, 1872 and the Gcncral Clauscs Act, 1897. He has aiso placed reliance on scvcral judgrnents of the Supremc Coutl including V. Raia Kumari versus P. Subborsma Naidu, (2004) 8 SCC 774 and ,D. Vinod Slrivappu versus Nurulu llelliuppa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. IIe submits that the cluestion of servicc of notice was not algued and questioned. I{e states that arguments werc hcard on thc point of tenitorial jurisdiction only. I-Ie submits that in casc the qucstion of service of notice had been raised by the learned trial court, he would have referred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgrnents and Scction 1I4 of thc Evidcnce Act, 1872 and Section 27 of thc General Clauscs Act, 1897. I-Ie has drawn my atlention to earlier order passed by p ,l : 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 ")/ d this Courl in Criminal Revision Petition No. 45212010 and other connected cases on 30th August, 2010. 2. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 18tl'May, 2010 is hcreby set aside and the rnatter is rcmanded back to the learned trial court for fresh hcaring and decision. Leatned counsel for the petitioner will be entitled to rely upon judgments and statutory provisions in support of his contention 3. It is clarificd that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and thc trial court will pass an order without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 4. The petitioner will appear liefore the trial court on 5tr'. October, 2010. Ihe petitions arc accordingly disposed of. 4- .ll t- L - tt SANJIV KHANNA. J. SEPTEMBER 13.2010 VKIT {-< t !