https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347244 In a Section 138 NI Act prosecution, where the cheque drawer is a company, the company must be arraigned as an accused because Section 141 fastens only vicarious liability on persons in charge; a signatory alone is not the drawer, so the prosecution against the officer could not be sustained without the company. An application styled under Section 319 CrPC could not be used to implead the company after the limitation period under Section 142 had expired, as the NI Act's filing timeline cannot be bypassed in that manner and no sufficient cause for condonation was shown. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable. en-us Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347244 In a Section 138 NI Act prosecution, where the cheque drawer is a company, the company must be arraigned as an accused because Section 141 fastens only vicarious liability on persons in charge; a signatory alone is not the drawer, so the prosecution against the officer could not be sustained without the company. An application styled under Section 319 CrPC could not be used to implead the company after the limitation period under Section 142 had expired, as the NI Act's filing timeline cannot be bypassed in that manner and no sufficient cause for condonation was shown. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347244