https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305154 For a cheque dishonour prosecution against a firm, the firm must be arraigned as the principal accused and the complaint must contain specific averments that the person sought to be made vicariously liable was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. A bare assertion that the accused was a partner is insufficient. Because the cheque was issued in the firm's name, the firm was not impleaded, and the complaint lacked the necessary Section 141 pleadings, the foundational requirements for vicarious criminal liability were not met. The complaint and summoning order were therefore unsustainable and quashing was warranted. en-us Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Nov 2022 10:20:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305154 For a cheque dishonour prosecution against a firm, the firm must be arraigned as the principal accused and the complaint must contain specific averments that the person sought to be made vicariously liable was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. A bare assertion that the accused was a partner is insufficient. Because the cheque was issued in the firm's name, the firm was not impleaded, and the complaint lacked the necessary Section 141 pleadings, the foundational requirements for vicarious criminal liability were not met. The complaint and summoning order were therefore unsustainable and quashing was warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305154