3, 26, 27, 28, 41, 46, 56, 59, 61, 69 & 71 ( 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. - CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIOIN N • •OS. 496/2010, 499/2010, 500/2010, 501/2010, 514/2010, 519/2010, 529/2010, 532/2010, 534/2010, 542/2010 & 544/2010 * I. These revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18th May, 2010 refusing to take cognizance and summon the accused in complaints iled under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, ilor short). By the impugned order dated 18th1 May, 2010, learned trial court l!ias dismissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of Iotice under Section 138(b) of the Act has been placed on record. Learned dounsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed postal recipts isued by the post office for sending of notices under Section 138 proviso ¶ause (b). of the Act. lIe relies upon the Evidence Act, 1872 and the General Clauses Act, 1897. He has also placed reliance on several jidgments of the Supreme Court including V. Raja Kumari versus P S'ubbarama Naidu, (2004) 8 SCC 774 and D. Vinod Shivappa versus PVanda Beiliappa, (2006) 6 SCC 456. He submits that the question of ervice of notice was not argued and questioned. He submits that if the question of service of notice had been raised by the learned trial court, he would have referred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgments and Section 14 ofthe Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the (leneral Clauses Act, 1897. He has drawn my attention to earlier order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 452/2010 and other connected cases on 30th1 4ugust, 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 / 2. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 1 8u1 May, 010 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 e entitled to rely upon judgments and statutory provisions in support of his contention. 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 01 bservations made in this order. 4. The petitioner will appear before the trial court on 5th1 October, 2010. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. SANMV KHANNA, J. SE1TEMBER 13, 2010 VKR E