https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459837 A dishonoured cheque signatory alleged to be in charge of the company remained liable under Sections 138 and 141(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, because procedural irregularities in the complaint, summons or framing of notice did not vitiate the trial where the accused had clear notice of the allegations, a fair chance to defend, and no failure of justice was shown. The court also held that the custodial sentence could be moderated on the facts, but compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC required a proper assessment of the complainant's loss, the justness of the claim, and the accused's capacity to pay. The compensation and default sentence were therefore set aside for fresh determination. en-us Wed, 03 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Dec 2024 11:21:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459837 A dishonoured cheque signatory alleged to be in charge of the company remained liable under Sections 138 and 141(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, because procedural irregularities in the complaint, summons or framing of notice did not vitiate the trial where the accused had clear notice of the allegations, a fair chance to defend, and no failure of justice was shown. The court also held that the custodial sentence could be moderated on the facts, but compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC required a proper assessment of the complainant's loss, the justness of the claim, and the accused's capacity to pay. The compensation and default sentence were therefore set aside for fresh determination. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459837