https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411748 A belated effort to add Mukta Developers and its partner as accused under Section 319 CrPC was impermissible where the cheque itself showed the firm as drawer and identified the authorised signatories. Because no statutory notice had been issued to the firm or the other signatory, and no timely steps were taken to implead them under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant could not use Section 319 to bypass the notice and limitation requirements. The court rejected the explanation that their role emerged only during trial, as the cheque and notice materials indicated prior knowledge of the transaction. Leave to appeal against the acquittal was therefore refused and the Magistrate's order was upheld. en-us Mon, 30 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Sep 2021 19:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411748 A belated effort to add Mukta Developers and its partner as accused under Section 319 CrPC was impermissible where the cheque itself showed the firm as drawer and identified the authorised signatories. Because no statutory notice had been issued to the firm or the other signatory, and no timely steps were taken to implead them under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant could not use Section 319 to bypass the notice and limitation requirements. The court rejected the explanation that their role emerged only during trial, as the cheque and notice materials indicated prior knowledge of the transaction. Leave to appeal against the acquittal was therefore refused and the Magistrate's order was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 30 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411748