https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393101 A Delhi HC decision on a Section 138 NI Act prosecution addressed whether conviction should be disturbed because the company was not properly arraigned and the Section 251 CrPC notice was issued only to the petitioner individually. The Court accepted that the cheque was issued by the petitioner as the company's signatory and noted the objection to the framing of the proceedings, but it declined to interfere with the conviction. On sentence, the Court considered the compensation already paid, the 23 days of custody undergone, the sentence being under two years, and the first-conviction position, and modified the sentence by granting the benefit of probation and custody already undergone while leaving the conviction intact. en-us Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Mar 2020 11:00:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393101 A Delhi HC decision on a Section 138 NI Act prosecution addressed whether conviction should be disturbed because the company was not properly arraigned and the Section 251 CrPC notice was issued only to the petitioner individually. The Court accepted that the cheque was issued by the petitioner as the company's signatory and noted the objection to the framing of the proceedings, but it declined to interfere with the conviction. On sentence, the Court considered the compensation already paid, the 23 days of custody undergone, the sentence being under two years, and the first-conviction position, and modified the sentence by granting the benefit of probation and custody already undergone while leaving the conviction intact. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 25 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393101