https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781617 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or act as an appellate forum; interference is confined to patent legal error, perversity, absence of evidence, or miscarriage of justice, and the concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act was upheld because the cheque, dishonour, statutory notice, and non-payment were proved. A later change in the complainant company's name or status does not by itself invalidate a complaint validly instituted by an authorised representative, and omission to amend the cause title did not affect the maintainability or validity of the proceeding. en-us Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781617 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and inherent power under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or act as an appellate forum; interference is confined to patent legal error, perversity, absence of evidence, or miscarriage of justice, and the concurrent conviction under Section 138 NI Act was upheld because the cheque, dishonour, statutory notice, and non-payment were proved. A later change in the complainant company's name or status does not by itself invalidate a complaint validly instituted by an authorised representative, and omission to amend the cause title did not affect the maintainability or validity of the proceeding. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781617