https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781718 HC held that the appellate court had perversely reversed a well-reasoned conviction under the NI Act by misapplying Section 141. It ruled that, since the accused admittedly signed the dishonoured cheque, he was liable as a signatory under Section 141(2), and no further averment that he was "in charge of and responsible for" the firm's business was required. Relying on SC precedent, HC found that interference with the acquittal was justified as the appellate court's view was one no reasonable person could take. The appellate judgment was set aside and the trial court's conviction order was restored; the appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Nov 2025 08:42:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781718 HC held that the appellate court had perversely reversed a well-reasoned conviction under the NI Act by misapplying Section 141. It ruled that, since the accused admittedly signed the dishonoured cheque, he was liable as a signatory under Section 141(2), and no further averment that he was "in charge of and responsible for" the firm's business was required. Relying on SC precedent, HC found that interference with the acquittal was justified as the appellate court's view was one no reasonable person could take. The appellate judgment was set aside and the trial court's conviction order was restored; the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781718