,2-t J ti * 23, 26, 27, 28, 41, 46, 56, 59, 6r, 69 & 7 r % 13.09.2010 Present: Mr. V.K. Shailendra for the petitioners. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIOIN NOS. 49612010. 499i2010. 500t20r0, 501/20L0, 51412010, 51912010, 5291201.0, 532/2010. 534t20r0, s42120L0 & 544/2010 1. 'I'hese revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18th May, 2010 refusing to take cognizance and summon the accused in contplaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act, for shorl). By the irnpugned order dated 18th May, 2}l},learned trial court has dismissed the complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivery of notice under Section 138(b) of the Act has been placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had-filed postal receipts issued by thc post office for sending of notices under Section 138 proviso clause (b) of the Act. I-Ie relies upon the Evidence'Act, 1872 -nd the General Clauscs Act, 1897.. I-Ie has also placed reliancc on severai judgrnents of the Supreme Court including V. Raia Kumari versus P. Subbarama Naidu, 8004\ 8 SCC 174 and .D. Vinod Shivappa versus Nundu Beltioppa, (jOOO) O SCC +SO. He submits that the cluestion of service 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 refcrred to and relied upon the aforesaid judgments and iection 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.' He has drawn rny attention to earlier order passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No.45212010 and other connected cases on 30tr' 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 ti {' 2. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated l8tL May, 2010 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned hial 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 ,*-ill pass an order without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 4. The petitioner will appear before the trial court on 5'l' October, 2010. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. J v 1 -/L I (-'l/= SANJIV KTIANNA" J. SEPTEMBER 13,2010 vKR 2E