https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108585 Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are independent criminal proceedings and are not barred merely because the complainant may also pursue civil recovery under Order 37 CPC; the criminal liability under Section 138, including imprisonment, fine, or both, is distinct from civil remedies, so a double jeopardy objection is misconceived. The question whether company officers were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business under Section 141 was not treated as a ground for quashing at the threshold and was left to be examined at trial, with liberty to seek recall of the summoning order. The quashing petition was therefore not maintainable on the merits urged. en-us Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:57:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108585 Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are independent criminal proceedings and are not barred merely because the complainant may also pursue civil recovery under Order 37 CPC; the criminal liability under Section 138, including imprisonment, fine, or both, is distinct from civil remedies, so a double jeopardy objection is misconceived. The question whether company officers were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business under Section 141 was not treated as a ground for quashing at the threshold and was left to be examined at trial, with liberty to seek recall of the summoning order. The quashing petition was therefore not maintainable on the merits urged. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108585