'f I 23, 26, 27, 28, 4I, 46, 56, 59, 61, 69 8L 7 | % 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. + CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 49612010. 49912010" 50012010^ 50112010. 5L4120L0, 5I9120L0. 52912010^ 53212010, o 1. 'fhese revision petitions are directed against the ordcr dated 18th May, 2010 refusing to takc cognizance and summon the accused in complaints 'filed uncler Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for short). By the impugncd order dated lBtr'May, z}I},leatned trial courl has dismissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of notice under Scction 13S(b) of the Acthas been placed on record. Learned counscl for the petitioner submits that the pctitioner had filed postal receipts issucd by the post office for sending of notices under Section 138 proviso clause (b) of the Act. IIc relies upon the llvidencc Act, 1872 and thc General Clauses Act, 1897. I{e has also placed reliancc on several judgments of the Supreme Court including V. Raiu Kumari versus P. Subbarama Naidu, (2004\ 8 SCC 774 and D. Vinod Sltivappa versus Nancls Beltiappa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. IIe submits that the question of service of noticc was not argued and questioned. lle submits that if the question of service of noticc had been raised by the learncd lrial court, he would have referued to and relied upon the aforesaid judgrrents and Section 114 of the llvidcnce.lr.ct, 1872 and Section 27 of the (icncral Claus:s Act, 1897. IIe has drawn my attention to earlier order passcd by this Coult in Crirninal Revision Petition No. 45212010 and othcr comected cases on 30'r' August,2010. t t' I 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 2. In view of the aforesaid position, the irnpugned order dated 18th May, 2010 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned triai 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 contcntion. 3. It is clarified that this Courl 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. 'lhe petitioner will appear before the trial courl on 5tl' October, 2010. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. \J f 4)ra-.u( L- r( SANJIV KHANNA. J. SEI'TEMBER 13, 2O1O VKR ,, ll