TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction for dishonour of cheque could be sustained in the absence of specific averments and proof that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time.
Analysis: Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is vicarious and does not arise merely because a person holds a designation in the company. A complaint must contain clear and specific averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business when the offence was committed. The requirement is mandatory and the averments must be examined at the threshold, because the statutory fiction under Section 141 can operate only when its ingredients are satisfied. Applying that principle, the absence of the necessary foundational allegations and supporting material against the appellant could not sustain the conviction under Section 138 read with Section 141.
Conclusion: The conviction of the appellant was unsustainable and the issue was answered in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the conviction was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: For fastening vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint must specifically aver that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offence; mere designation is insufficient.
TaxTMI 
