https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105244 A former director cannot be proceeded against for a company's cheque-dishonour offence unless the complaint specifically alleges that, at the time of the offence, he was in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Mere designation as a director is insufficient to attract vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Where the complaint lacks that foundational averment and the material indicates the person had ceased to be a director before the cheque was issued, continuation of prosecution constitutes abuse of process and the High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash the proceedings. The case was held unsustainable against the former director, while the prosecution could continue against the remaining accused. en-us Fri, 06 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Mar 2012 13:13:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105244 A former director cannot be proceeded against for a company's cheque-dishonour offence unless the complaint specifically alleges that, at the time of the offence, he was in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Mere designation as a director is insufficient to attract vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Where the complaint lacks that foundational averment and the material indicates the person had ceased to be a director before the cheque was issued, continuation of prosecution constitutes abuse of process and the High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash the proceedings. The case was held unsustainable against the former director, while the prosecution could continue against the remaining accused. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 06 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105244