https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197882 In prosecutions under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, persons in charge of a company cannot obtain automatic acquittal merely because proceedings against the company or other accused have been split up; their liability remains a matter for evidence, subject to the statutory defence of absence of knowledge or due diligence. The split-up order was also found unsustainable where effective continuation of the case against all available accused remained possible, including by substituted service. The procedural course adopted by the trial court was corrected, the split-up order against accused 1 to 9 was set aside, and the proceedings were directed to continue against all concerned accused. en-us Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jan 2018 14:52:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197882 In prosecutions under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, persons in charge of a company cannot obtain automatic acquittal merely because proceedings against the company or other accused have been split up; their liability remains a matter for evidence, subject to the statutory defence of absence of knowledge or due diligence. The split-up order was also found unsustainable where effective continuation of the case against all available accused remained possible, including by substituted service. The procedural course adopted by the trial court was corrected, the split-up order against accused 1 to 9 was set aside, and the proceedings were directed to continue against all concerned accused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197882