https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398813 A person who had resigned as a director before the agreement was executed and before the cheques were issued and dishonoured could not be subjected to prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of general averments alone. The complaint had to plead with specificity how and in what manner the accused was responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; a bare recital that the person was in charge of day-to-day affairs was insufficient. As the resignation was supported by undisputed Form 32 and the alleged transactions post-dated cessation of office, continuation of the complaints was treated as an abuse of process and the summons were quashed under Section 482 CrPC. en-us Wed, 23 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Sep 2020 09:50:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398813 A person who had resigned as a director before the agreement was executed and before the cheques were issued and dishonoured could not be subjected to prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of general averments alone. The complaint had to plead with specificity how and in what manner the accused was responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; a bare recital that the person was in charge of day-to-day affairs was insufficient. As the resignation was supported by undisputed Form 32 and the alleged transactions post-dated cessation of office, continuation of the complaints was treated as an abuse of process and the summons were quashed under Section 482 CrPC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398813