https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771346 In a section 138 NI Act complaint by a company, substitution of the authorised representative was held permissible, and the prosecution could not be rejected merely because the original deponent was not later cross-examined or because no fresh affidavit was filed by the substituted representative. The court noted that supporting documents showing the transaction, dishonour, notice and service remained usable, and that if further examination was needed, the trial court should have used its procedural powers to summon the witness rather than terminate the complaint on a technical objection. The acquittal was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for a denovo trial on merits, with liberty to substitute the representative and adduce evidence afresh. en-us Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 May 2025 09:00:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771346 In a section 138 NI Act complaint by a company, substitution of the authorised representative was held permissible, and the prosecution could not be rejected merely because the original deponent was not later cross-examined or because no fresh affidavit was filed by the substituted representative. The court noted that supporting documents showing the transaction, dishonour, notice and service remained usable, and that if further examination was needed, the trial court should have used its procedural powers to summon the witness rather than terminate the complaint on a technical objection. The acquittal was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for a denovo trial on merits, with liberty to substitute the representative and adduce evidence afresh. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771346