Specific averments required to summon company officers under the Negotiable Instruments Act; omnibus allegations are insufficient.

For prosecution of company directors or officers under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint must plead specific facts showing how each accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business, or that the offence occurred with their consent, connivance, or neglect. Mere status as director, chairman, or vice chairman, or a general assertion that all accused managed the company's affairs, is insufficient. The pleading must disclose actual involvement in the relevant transaction or overall control linked to the offence. On the facts stated, the complaint lacked the required particulars, so summoning the respondents was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether directors or company officers can be summoned for an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of omnibus allegations that they were responsible for the conduct of the company's business, without specific averments showing their actual role or their consent, connivance, or neglect.

Analysis: For prosecution under Section 141, a complaint must contain clear and specific allegations showing how the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, or how the offence was committed with the accused's consent, connivance, or neglect. Mere designation as director, chairman, or vice chairman is not enough. The allegation must disclose involvement in the relevant business transaction or actual overall control, and a general statement that all accused were responsible for the company's affairs does not satisfy the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The complaint did not contain sufficient particulars to justify summoning the respondents. The refusal to summon them was upheld.

---