Cheque dishonour liability requires proof that the accused was the drawer or otherwise responsible for the dishonour.

Liability for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to the drawer of the cheque, or to a person shown to be responsible for the relevant business and non-payment. The complaint failed to clearly state when the business changed from proprietorship to partnership to company, identify the account from which the cheque was issued, or show who was responsible at the time of issuance and dishonour. As the record did not establish that the petitioner was the drawer or otherwise liable for the dishonour, no offence under Section 138 was made out and the criminal proceedings against him were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings for cheque dishonour could continue against a person who was neither the drawer of the cheque nor shown to be responsible for the relevant business or non-payment of the cheque amount.

Analysis: The complaint did not clearly state when the business changed from proprietorship to partnership to company, nor did it identify the account from which the cheque was issued or the persons responsible at the time of issuance and dishonour. Liability under the cheque dishonour provision attaches to the drawer of the cheque, and the record did not show that the petitioner was the drawer or that he was otherwise liable for the dishonour.

Conclusion: No offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was made out against the petitioner, and the criminal proceedings against him were liable to be quashed.

---