https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194659 Territorial jurisdiction in a Section 138 prosecution can lie where any constituent act of the offence occurs, and presentation of the cheque, dishonour, notice and non-payment at Delhi were sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Delhi courts. A complaint against company directors was not liable to be quashed at the threshold where it specifically alleged that they were in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day business; whether particular directors were uninvolved was a matter for evidence. The cheque was also presumed under Section 139 to have been issued for discharge of a debt or liability, and alleged collateral security or part payment did not displace that presumption at the summoning stage. en-us Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Sep 2017 17:13:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194659 Territorial jurisdiction in a Section 138 prosecution can lie where any constituent act of the offence occurs, and presentation of the cheque, dishonour, notice and non-payment at Delhi were sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Delhi courts. A complaint against company directors was not liable to be quashed at the threshold where it specifically alleged that they were in charge of and responsible for the company's day-to-day business; whether particular directors were uninvolved was a matter for evidence. The cheque was also presumed under Section 139 to have been issued for discharge of a debt or liability, and alleged collateral security or part payment did not displace that presumption at the summoning stage. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194659