https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108754 Criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were examined against a plea that a BIFR restraint order under section 22A of SICA barred prosecution. The Court noted that cheque dishonour liability is not automatically excluded by pendency of sick-company proceedings; the effect of the restraint order depends on the facts, including the timing of the cheque, the expiry of the statutory notice period, and whether the BIFR order existed before completion of the offence. It further held that, in section 482 CrPC proceedings, the Court cannot go beyond the complaint and materials before the Magistrate, leaving the SICA-based defence to be raised before trial. The quashing petition was not maintainable on the record placed before it. en-us Thu, 25 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:12:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108754 Criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were examined against a plea that a BIFR restraint order under section 22A of SICA barred prosecution. The Court noted that cheque dishonour liability is not automatically excluded by pendency of sick-company proceedings; the effect of the restraint order depends on the facts, including the timing of the cheque, the expiry of the statutory notice period, and whether the BIFR order existed before completion of the offence. It further held that, in section 482 CrPC proceedings, the Court cannot go beyond the complaint and materials before the Magistrate, leaving the SICA-based defence to be raised before trial. The quashing petition was not maintainable on the record placed before it. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 25 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108754