https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312328 For prosecution of company officers in cheque dishonour cases, vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only where the complaint specifically alleges that each accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the time of the offence; in the absence of such averments, cognizance against directors other than the chairman and managing director is quashed. A single complaint for multiple dishonoured cheques is not barred by Section 219 CrPC where the operative cause of action under Section 138 matures on failure to pay within the statutory notice period under Section 138(b). An objection based on the complainant's advocate allegedly participating in the sworn statement was rejected for lack of supporting material. en-us Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Feb 2024 15:40:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312328 For prosecution of company officers in cheque dishonour cases, vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only where the complaint specifically alleges that each accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the time of the offence; in the absence of such averments, cognizance against directors other than the chairman and managing director is quashed. A single complaint for multiple dishonoured cheques is not barred by Section 219 CrPC where the operative cause of action under Section 138 matures on failure to pay within the statutory notice period under Section 138(b). An objection based on the complainant's advocate allegedly participating in the sworn statement was rejected for lack of supporting material. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312328