Section 138 cheque dishonour proceedings fail against an individual when the cheque is drawn on a company account without Section 141 allegations.

Section 138 prosecution cannot be maintained against an individual when the dishonoured cheque is drawn on a company account and the complaint does not allege that the company committed the offence so as to attract Section 141. The High Court noted that the cheque was issued on behalf of the company and signed by its managing director, while the complaint proceeded only against the petitioner personally. It held that the statutory foundation for personal liability was absent and the proceedings were liable to be quashed. The objection that only the company could file the complaint was rejected because the loan agreement and complaint showed the transaction was with the complainant personally, with the company name used only for address purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be maintained against the petitioner in his personal capacity when the dishonoured cheque was drawn on the account of a company and the complaint did not allege commission of the offence by the company. (ii) Whether the complaint was maintainable when the loan transaction and cheque were said to relate to the complainant's finance business and the petitioners' objection was that the proper complainant was the company.

Issue (i):

Analysis: The cheque produced with the petition showed that it was issued on behalf of the company and signed by its managing director. The complaint, however, proceeded against the petitioner personally and did not allege that the cheque was drawn on his own account or that the company had committed the offence. Section 138 requires that the cheque be drawn by the accused on an account maintained by him for discharge of a legally enforceable liability. Section 141 applies where the offence under Section 138 is committed by a company and the prosecution is laid against persons responsible for the company's business. That foundation was absent here.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the petitioner in his personal capacity were not maintainable and were liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii):

Analysis: The complaint and the loan agreement indicated that the complainant himself advanced the loan and that the reference to the finance company was only for address purposes. The transaction was therefore treated as one with the complainant, and not as a case where the company alone could prosecute.

Conclusion: The objection that only the company could have filed the complaint was rejected.

Final Conclusion: As the statutory requirements for prosecution under Section 138 were not satisfied against the petitioner personally, the criminal proceedings were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A person cannot be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in his individual capacity when the dishonoured cheque is drawn on the account of a company and the complaint contains no allegation that the offence was committed by the company so as to attract Section 141.

---