https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367193 The court rejected the plea regarding the maintainability of the complaint for not naming the Proprietary concern as an accused, clarifying the liability of the individual proprietor. It found that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by providing contradictory statements and lacking supporting evidence. Consequently, the court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, and directed the trial court to secure the accused for imprisonment. en-us Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 16 Sep 2018 18:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367193 The court rejected the plea regarding the maintainability of the complaint for not naming the Proprietary concern as an accused, clarifying the liability of the individual proprietor. It found that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by providing contradictory statements and lacking supporting evidence. Consequently, the court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, and directed the trial court to secure the accused for imprisonment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367193