https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167649 In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a plea that a director had resigned before the cheques were issued could not justify quashing at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC where the resignation depended on disputed facts requiring evidence. The Court also held that a complaint alleging that the directors were in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day affairs contained sufficient averments to proceed, and such vicarious liability issues were matters for trial. The quashing order was therefore set aside and the criminal proceedings restored. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167649 In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a plea that a director had resigned before the cheques were issued could not justify quashing at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC where the resignation depended on disputed facts requiring evidence. The Court also held that a complaint alleging that the directors were in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day affairs contained sufficient averments to proceed, and such vicarious liability issues were matters for trial. The quashing order was therefore set aside and the criminal proceedings restored. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167649