https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112574 SC dismissed the appeals and upheld quashing of summons against a company's deputy general manager for dishonour of cheques. The Court held that a bare reproduction of s.141(1) cannot subject every officer to prosecution; only those truly in charge and responsible for company business fall within s.141(1). A deputy general manager did not qualify, and no averments of consent, connivance or negligence were made to attract s.141(2). Consequently, vicarious liability was not established and prosecution could not be maintained. en-us Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Sep 2025 17:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112574 SC dismissed the appeals and upheld quashing of summons against a company's deputy general manager for dishonour of cheques. The Court held that a bare reproduction of s.141(1) cannot subject every officer to prosecution; only those truly in charge and responsible for company business fall within s.141(1). A deputy general manager did not qualify, and no averments of consent, connivance or negligence were made to attract s.141(2). Consequently, vicarious liability was not established and prosecution could not be maintained. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112574