Vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act depends on specific partner averments, while disputed retirement issues go to trial.

Specific averments that accused partners were in charge of the firm's day-to-day affairs are sufficient at the threshold to invoke vicarious liability under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A claimed prior retirement from the firm raises a disputed question of fact that must be proved by evidence, so the criminal process should not be short-circuited under Section 482 CrPC; the complaints must proceed to trial and the defence be established in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in discharging the respondents in proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the complaints did not contain sufficient averments to fasten vicarious criminal liability and the dispute as to their retirement from the firm should be left for trial.

Analysis: The complaints contained a clear averment that the accused were partners of the firm and were in charge of its day-to-day affairs at the relevant time. For launching prosecution under Section 141, such specific averments are sufficient at the threshold; the complainant is not required to prove, before trial, that each partner had knowledge of every transaction. The respondents' plea that they had retired earlier raised a disputed question of fact, which could be established only by evidence. The High Court ought not to have short-circuited the criminal process by discharging them under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The discharge order could not be sustained. The complaints were required to proceed to trial, with the respondents left to establish their defence in accordance with law.

---