Limitation in cheque dishonour complaints: proceedings against the company failed, but the managing director remained liable on proper averments.

A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act was held time-barred against the company because no complaint was filed within the prescribed period after the first dishonour, and later presentation of the cheque did not revive limitation for the company. The complaint remained maintainable against the managing director because the later dishonour was within limitation and the pleadings specifically stated that he was the managing director in charge of, and responsible for, the company's business. The note records the settled position that proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 may continue against a person in charge even if the company is not proceeded against due to limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was barred by limitation against the company and whether the summoning order could nonetheless be sustained against the managing director alone.

Analysis: The complaint against the company was found to be time-barred because no complaint was filed within the prescribed period after the first dishonour and the later presentation of the cheque did not revive the bar as against the company. As regards the second petitioner, the complaint was within limitation since the notice and prosecution were relatable to the later dishonour. The pleading also contained specific averments that the second petitioner was the managing director and was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. The position that a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 can proceed against the director even if the company is not proceeded against was treated as settled.

Conclusion: The complaint was barred by limitation against the first petitioner company, but it was maintainable against the second petitioner managing director.

Final Conclusion: The summoning order was quashed only to the extent of the first petitioner, while it was sustained against the second petitioner, resulting in partial relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint may continue against a person in charge of the company where the necessary allegations exist, even if the proceedings fail against the company for limitation.

---