https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310590 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, defences that the accused was neither a signatory to the cheque nor responsible for the company's affairs, or had no role in negotiations or daily management, are matters for trial and cannot normally justify quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The HC noted that the complaint specifically alleged involvement in finance, accounts, and day-to-day affairs, and that disputed factual questions must be tested before the trial court. It also recognised that the special procedure under Sections 143 to 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is meant to expedite trial, not to short-circuit it through inherent jurisdiction. en-us Wed, 10 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Nov 2023 21:07:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310590 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, defences that the accused was neither a signatory to the cheque nor responsible for the company's affairs, or had no role in negotiations or daily management, are matters for trial and cannot normally justify quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The HC noted that the complaint specifically alleged involvement in finance, accounts, and day-to-day affairs, and that disputed factual questions must be tested before the trial court. It also recognised that the special procedure under Sections 143 to 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is meant to expedite trial, not to short-circuit it through inherent jurisdiction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310590