https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78013 The Gujarat High Court held that the applicant, as a director and signatory of cheques, can be accused u/s 319 of CrPC despite non-service of notice u/s 138(b) of N.I. Act. The court emphasized the applicant's responsibility for company conduct. Citing Krisha Texport and Capital Markets case, the court found prosecution without notice valid. Impleadment u/s 319 after statutory period expiry is permissible pre-cognizance. The trial court's order was deemed lawful as no abuse of process occurred. The application was dismissed, and the rule discharged. en-us Fri, 31 May 2024 14:10:22 +0530 Fri, 31 May 2024 14:10:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78013 The Gujarat High Court held that the applicant, as a director and signatory of cheques, can be accused u/s 319 of CrPC despite non-service of notice u/s 138(b) of N.I. Act. The court emphasized the applicant's responsibility for company conduct. Citing Krisha Texport and Capital Markets case, the court found prosecution without notice valid. Impleadment u/s 319 after statutory period expiry is permissible pre-cognizance. The trial court's order was deemed lawful as no abuse of process occurred. The application was dismissed, and the rule discharged. Highlights Indian Laws Fri, 31 May 2024 14:10:22 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78013