https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416589 The court quashed the proceedings against A1 and A3 in a criminal case under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found the complaint failed to establish their vicarious liability as they were not directly involved in the transaction and were not signatories of the dishonored cheques. Emphasizing the necessity of arraigning the company as an accused for vicarious liability, the court ruled that without naming Indus Hospitals as an accused, there was insufficient evidence connecting A1 and A3 to the offense. The judgment underscores the importance of establishing a direct link between accused individuals and alleged offenses to prevent undue prosecution. en-us Wed, 01 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jan 2022 10:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416589 The court quashed the proceedings against A1 and A3 in a criminal case under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found the complaint failed to establish their vicarious liability as they were not directly involved in the transaction and were not signatories of the dishonored cheques. Emphasizing the necessity of arraigning the company as an accused for vicarious liability, the court ruled that without naming Indus Hospitals as an accused, there was insufficient evidence connecting A1 and A3 to the offense. The judgment underscores the importance of establishing a direct link between accused individuals and alleged offenses to prevent undue prosecution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416589