Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific pleadings that the director was in charge at the relevant time.

Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates constructive vicarious liability only where the complaint makes clear and specific averments that the accused was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Prior directorship or earlier association is insufficient. On the stated facts, the accused had resigned before dishonour, the complainant was aware of that resignation, and the complaint did not allege that he signed the cheque or otherwise controlled its issuance. A new claim of authorised-signatory status could not be raised for the first time. The accused was therefore not prosecutable on the pleaded basis, and the discharge challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person who had resigned as a director before the cheque was dishonoured, and against whom the complaint contained no specific averment that he was the signatory or otherwise in charge of the company's business at the relevant time, could be prosecuted under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Liability under Section 141 is a form of constructive or vicarious criminal liability and therefore requires strict compliance with the statutory conditions. The complaint must contain clear and specific averments showing that the accused was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. Mere prior directorship or some earlier association with the company is not enough. On the facts, the accused had resigned before the cheque was presented and dishonoured, the complainant was aware of the resignation, and the complaint did not state that he was the signatory of the cheque or otherwise responsible for its issuance. A contention raised for the first time that he was the authorised signatory could not be entertained in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The accused was not liable to be prosecuted under Section 141 on the basis pleaded, and the challenge to the discharge failed.

---