As per case facts, post-dated cheques issued by the company were dishonoured, and despite a notice, no payment was made. Before or after the dishonour, the company was declared sick ... under SICA. A complaint was filed under Section 138 NI Act against the company and its directors, who appealed to quash the proceedings citing SICA's provisions. The High Court rejected their plea. The question arose whether a company and its Directors can be prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 NI Act if the company is declared sick under SICA before the cheque amount payment period expires. Finally, the Supreme Court held that Section 22 of SICA does not impede criminal proceedings under Section 138 NI Act, as it restricts asset disposal for debt recovery, not criminal prosecution. Arguments regarding fine realization or hindrance to BIFR efforts were dismissed as premature. However, a Section 22-A restraint order *before* the cheque was drawn or before the notice period expired might affect the offence's completion, allowing the accused to present such facts to the Magistrate.