https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300821 Vicarious liability in cheque dishonour prosecutions does not arise from directorship alone; the complaint must specifically aver that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Applying that principle, the former director who had ceased to hold office before the cheques were issued could not be proceeded against on the material then available, so the summoning order was quashed for him. As to the other directors, the complaint and notice showed their active role and responsibility when the cheques were issued and matured, so the proceedings were permitted to continue and their defence was left for trial. en-us Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Feb 2022 13:07:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300821 Vicarious liability in cheque dishonour prosecutions does not arise from directorship alone; the complaint must specifically aver that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Applying that principle, the former director who had ceased to hold office before the cheques were issued could not be proceeded against on the material then available, so the summoning order was quashed for him. As to the other directors, the complaint and notice showed their active role and responsibility when the cheques were issued and matured, so the proceedings were permitted to continue and their defence was left for trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300821