Section 141 averments in cheque dishonour cases must specifically show directors were in charge of the company's business.

In cheque dishonour prosecutions against persons other than the company, a complaint must contain specific foundational averments that each accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the time of the offence. A bare reference to their status as directors, or a general assertion of responsibility, is insufficient. The sworn statement must also support that allegation. Applying strict compliance with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the SC held that vicarious criminal liability cannot be presumed from office alone, and the criminal process issued against the appellants could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint disclosed the requisite averments under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to fasten vicarious criminal liability on the appellants, and whether the criminal process issued against them was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: For prosecution of persons other than the company in a cheque dishonour case, the complaint must contain a clear factual assertion that, at the time of the offence, such persons were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Merely describing them as directors, or making a general statement of responsibility, is not enough. The sworn statement also did not state that the appellants were in charge of the business. In proceedings where summons would expose the accused to criminal process, strict compliance with the statutory requirement is necessary, and the complainant must make the foundational averments required by Section 141. The earlier decisions applied the same principle that liability cannot be presumed merely from the office of director.

Conclusion: The complaint did not satisfy the requirements of Section 141, and the process issued against the appellants could not be sustained.

---