Equivalent value attachment under money laundering law upheld where received funds were treated as proceeds of crime and prior-acquired property could...
Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires person-specific foundational averments showing how an accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company or entity's affairs. A complaint cannot proceed on designation alone. The Court found sufficient prima facie material against respondents 1, 2 and 4 because the complaint and documents linked them to the underlying borrowing and execution of the MoU, cheque and promissory notes, justifying continuation of prosecution. As to respondent 3, only a general assertion based on his status as Executive Member was made, with no specific factual nexus to the dishonoured cheque transaction, so quashing was upheld for him.
Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires person-specific foundational averments showing how an accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company or entity's affairs. A complaint cannot proceed on designation alone. The Court found sufficient prima facie material against respondents 1, 2 and 4 because the complaint and documents linked them to the underlying borrowing and execution of the MoU, cheque and promissory notes, justifying continuation of prosecution. As to respondent 3, only a general assertion based on his status as Executive Member was made, with no specific factual nexus to the dishonoured cheque transaction, so quashing was upheld for him.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
