https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753389 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the High Court held that separate individual notice to the cheque signatory was not mandatory where notice had already been served on the company and the record showed the signatory's role in the transaction. It further held that impleadment of the signatory as an accused under Section 319 CrPC was not barred by limitation, because the trial court had not yet taken cognizance when the application was considered and the enquiry had disclosed material linking him to the dishonoured cheques. The challenge to the impleadment order therefore failed, and the signatory was validly brought into the proceedings. en-us Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 May 2024 12:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753389 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the High Court held that separate individual notice to the cheque signatory was not mandatory where notice had already been served on the company and the record showed the signatory's role in the transaction. It further held that impleadment of the signatory as an accused under Section 319 CrPC was not barred by limitation, because the trial court had not yet taken cognizance when the application was considered and the enquiry had disclosed material linking him to the dishonoured cheques. The challenge to the impleadment order therefore failed, and the signatory was validly brought into the proceedings. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753389