https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312617 Allegations that a company officer was in charge of day-to-day affairs and had knowledge of the cheque issuance were sufficient at the quashing stage to sustain vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A plea that the petitioner was not concerned with the company when the cheques were issued was treated as a defence requiring evidence, not a basis for quashing under Section 482 CrPC. The court also noted that the Section 138 offence is completed only on failure to pay within the statutory period after notice, and the petitioner was the Chief Executive Officer when that stage was reached, so the complaint could proceed. en-us Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Feb 2024 10:19:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312617 Allegations that a company officer was in charge of day-to-day affairs and had knowledge of the cheque issuance were sufficient at the quashing stage to sustain vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A plea that the petitioner was not concerned with the company when the cheques were issued was treated as a defence requiring evidence, not a basis for quashing under Section 482 CrPC. The court also noted that the Section 138 offence is completed only on failure to pay within the statutory period after notice, and the petitioner was the Chief Executive Officer when that stage was reached, so the complaint could proceed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312617