SHYAM LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE all the aforetitled three petitions involve the same question of law having identical facts and the contesting parties are also the same in all the three petitions, hence, these are being decided by this common judgment and order.

(2.) HEARD Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate, for the applicant. None appeared for the private respondent no. 2 even in the revised call though he has been served sufficiently. Also perused the papers available on record.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant argued that the impugned cognizance orders cannot be sustained inasmuch as the complainant did not mention the correct unpaid amount under the concerned cheque and he demanded payment of the cumulative amount of Rs. 1,21,000/ - through each of the three demand notices. He also submitted that even these complaints were filed belatedly. Learned Counsel cited two precedents of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in case of K.R. Indira v. Dr. G. Adinarayana, : 2004 Cri. L.J. 5 and Rahul Builders v. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals, : (2008) 2 SCC 321.