Director liability under cheque dishonour law requires specific averments of control and responsibility, not bare assertions.

Vicarious criminal liability of directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not automatic. A complaint must contain specific and clear averments showing that, at the relevant time, the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. A bare statement that a person was a director, or a general allegation without particulars of the person's role in finances, cheque issuance, or control of affairs, is insufficient to attract liability. The document states that such pleadings cannot sustain proceedings against directors and that the complaint on the facts described was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can proceed against directors on a mere bald assertion that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business, without specific particulars showing their role.

Analysis: Liability of directors for dishonour of cheque is not automatic. A complaint must specifically aver that, at the relevant time, the accused director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Mere designation as a director, or a general assertion in the complaint without particulars of the director's role in finances, issuance of cheque, or control over the company's affairs, is insufficient to attract vicarious criminal liability.

Conclusion: The complaint against the directors could not be sustained on the pleadings as framed, and the proceedings against them were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: For fastening vicarious liability on a director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must contain specific and clear averments showing how that director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time.

---