https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106696 A complaint under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not liable to be quashed where it specifically alleged that the accused was a director responsible for the company's day-to-day affairs. The High Court held that whether she was in fact a director, whether she was in charge of the business, and whether the offence occurred without her knowledge were disputed factual matters for trial, not for threshold interference. It further stated that illness or infirmity does not create any exemption from criminal prosecution under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaints therefore disclosed a triable case and were allowed to proceed. en-us Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:53:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106696 A complaint under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not liable to be quashed where it specifically alleged that the accused was a director responsible for the company's day-to-day affairs. The High Court held that whether she was in fact a director, whether she was in charge of the business, and whether the offence occurred without her knowledge were disputed factual matters for trial, not for threshold interference. It further stated that illness or infirmity does not create any exemption from criminal prosecution under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaints therefore disclosed a triable case and were allowed to proceed. Case-Laws Companies Law Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106696