https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462614 A person arraigned in proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may raise, at the threshold, the defence that he was not able for the day-to-day management of the business and was outside India when the alleged offence occurred. The Supreme Court found it improper to defer that contention to trial where the accused had sought discharge and quashing under Section 482 CrPC. It held that the High Court should have examined the passport entries relied on to show departure from India and absence thereafter, rather than leaving the issue for later stages. The refusal to consider the plea at the initial stage was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. en-us Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jul 2025 11:06:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462614 A person arraigned in proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may raise, at the threshold, the defence that he was not able for the day-to-day management of the business and was outside India when the alleged offence occurred. The Supreme Court found it improper to defer that contention to trial where the accused had sought discharge and quashing under Section 482 CrPC. It held that the High Court should have examined the passport entries relied on to show departure from India and absence thereafter, rather than leaving the issue for later stages. The refusal to consider the plea at the initial stage was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 31 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462614