23,26, 27, 28,41,46, 56, 59,61, 69&71 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shaiiendra for the petitioners. ± CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 496/2010, 499/2010,1 500/2010, 501/2010, 514/2010, 519/2010, 529/2010, 532/2010,j 534/2010,542/2010& 544/2010 * 1. These revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18th 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 short).. By the impugned order dated 18th May, 2010, learned trial court' has dismissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of notice under Section 1 3(b) of the Act has been placed on record. Learned counsel fort the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed postal receipts issued by the post office for sending of notices uiider Section 138 proviso clause (b) of the Act. He relies upon'the Evidence. Act, 1872 and the General Cliises Act, 1897. He has also placed reliance on several judgments of the Supreme Court iflcluding V. Raja Kumari versus P. Subbaraina Naidu, (2004) 8 SCC 774 and D. Vinod Shivappa versus Nanda Beillappa, (2006) .6 SCC 456. He subthits that the question of service of iotice was not argued and questioned. He submits that if the - question of ervice of notice had been raised by the learned trial 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 General Clauses Acts 1897. He las drawn my attention to earlier order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 452/2010 and othr connected cases on 30th August, 2010 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 A 2. In view of the aforesaidposition, the impugned order dated 181h 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 merith and. the trial court will pass an order without being influenced by th observatioiis made in thisorder. 4. The petitioner wilL appear before the trial court on 5t1 October, 2010. • The petitions are accordingly disposed of _ l • -- SANJIV KHANNA, J. SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 . . VR