Specific averment required for director liability under cheque dishonour law; former director not compelled to face trial.

Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires a specific averment that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the time of the offence; mere status as a director is insufficient. Where the complaint contains only general allegations, attributes the cheque transactions to another director, and the record shows resignation before the cheques were issued, the material is inadequate to compel the former director to face trial. On those pleaded facts, the process issued against him was liable to be quashed in respect of the offences under Section 138 of the NI Act and Section 420 of the IPC.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order issuing process for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be quashed in respect of a director who had resigned before the cheques were issued and against whom the complaint contained no specific averment that he was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time.

Analysis: Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requires a specific pleading that the accused was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. Mere status as a director is not enough. On the material before the Court, the complaint contained only general allegations against the applicant, while the issuance of cheques was attributed specifically to another director. The applicant produced Form No. 32 and related material showing resignation prior to the cheques, and there was no sufficient material to show that he was connected with the company's affairs at the relevant time. In these circumstances, the allegations were held insufficient to justify compelling him to face trial.

Conclusion: The applicant was not liable to be proceeded against for the alleged offences on the complaint as framed, and the process issued against him was liable to be quashed.

---