https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274968 A director who had resigned before the relevant transaction and cheque issuance cannot be made vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unless the complaint specifically alleges that the director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the time of the offence. Certified Form No. 32 was treated as reliable proof of prior resignation, and the absence of specific averments in the complaint was sufficient to show that continuation of criminal proceedings against the resigned directors was unjustified. Proceedings against those directors were therefore quashed, while the case against the remaining accused was left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Sep 2018 16:42:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274968 A director who had resigned before the relevant transaction and cheque issuance cannot be made vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unless the complaint specifically alleges that the director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the time of the offence. Certified Form No. 32 was treated as reliable proof of prior resignation, and the absence of specific averments in the complaint was sufficient to show that continuation of criminal proceedings against the resigned directors was unjustified. Proceedings against those directors were therefore quashed, while the case against the remaining accused was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274968