https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297369 In cheque-dishonour prosecutions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the company is ordinarily a necessary accused where the cheque was issued on its behalf, because vicarious liability of directors or officers depends on arraignment of the company. The omission to name the company at the outset is not necessarily fatal if the complaint already contains the foundational averments and material particulars; such defect may be cured by later impleadment. An application styled under Section 319 CrPC may still be treated as a request to correct the omission where the court already has the basis for cognizance. Impleadment can also be permitted before evidence is recorded. en-us Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Aug 2021 22:17:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297369 In cheque-dishonour prosecutions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the company is ordinarily a necessary accused where the cheque was issued on its behalf, because vicarious liability of directors or officers depends on arraignment of the company. The omission to name the company at the outset is not necessarily fatal if the complaint already contains the foundational averments and material particulars; such defect may be cured by later impleadment. An application styled under Section 319 CrPC may still be treated as a request to correct the omission where the court already has the basis for cognizance. Impleadment can also be permitted before evidence is recorded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297369