https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298099 A prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act should not be quashed at the threshold where the complaint specifically avers that the accused directors were in charge of and responsible for the company's business. The complaint here also pleaded participation in the financial arrangement, consent to the memorandum of understanding, cheque dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of statutory notice, and return of the notice marked "not claimed". Because these foundational facts and statutory presumptions under Sections 138, 139 and 141 were pleaded, the accused's contentions on lack of knowledge, due diligence, or absence of liability were matters for trial. The inherent jurisdiction was therefore not exercised to stop the prosecution. en-us Fri, 18 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 10 Oct 2021 12:03:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298099 A prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act should not be quashed at the threshold where the complaint specifically avers that the accused directors were in charge of and responsible for the company's business. The complaint here also pleaded participation in the financial arrangement, consent to the memorandum of understanding, cheque dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of statutory notice, and return of the notice marked "not claimed". Because these foundational facts and statutory presumptions under Sections 138, 139 and 141 were pleaded, the accused's contentions on lack of knowledge, due diligence, or absence of liability were matters for trial. The inherent jurisdiction was therefore not exercised to stop the prosecution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298099