<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (6) TMI 1873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773760</link>
    <description>Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only where the complaint contains specific averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the relevant time; mere designation as Company Secretary is insufficient. On the stated facts, the petitioner was not the cheque signatory, had ceased association with the company, and no particular role in the transaction or day-to-day affairs was pleaded, so the complaint could not be sustained against her. Where the accused resides outside the Magistrate&#039;s jurisdiction, Section 202 of the CrPC requires postponement of process and inquiry or investigation before issuance; the mechanical issuance of process without that exercise was therefore invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2025 08:31:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=832298" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1873 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773760</link>
      <description>Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only where the complaint contains specific averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s business at the relevant time; mere designation as Company Secretary is insufficient. On the stated facts, the petitioner was not the cheque signatory, had ceased association with the company, and no particular role in the transaction or day-to-day affairs was pleaded, so the complaint could not be sustained against her. Where the accused resides outside the Magistrate&#039;s jurisdiction, Section 202 of the CrPC requires postponement of process and inquiry or investigation before issuance; the mechanical issuance of process without that exercise was therefore invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773760</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>