Vicarious liability under cheque dishonour law survives where a complaint pleads a partner's role and business responsibility sufficiently.

A complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable against a partner where, on a holistic reading, it contains sufficient factual averments showing that the partner was in charge of and responsible for the firm's business at the time of the cheque dishonour. The complaint here pleaded the partnership structure, the accused's role in the transactions, the issuance and dishonour of cheques, part payment, and later assurances, which were held to go beyond a bare or mechanical allegation. The SC held these averments adequate to attract vicarious liability and ruled that the High Court should not have quashed the criminal proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint contained sufficient averments to attract vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sustain prosecution of a partner in a firm for an offence under Section 138.

Analysis: Section 141 treats a firm as a company and a partner as a person who may be liable if, at the time of the offence, he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. The sufficiency of such liability has to be tested on a holistic reading of the complaint. The complaint set out the nature of the partnership, the business carried on, the roles of the accused in the transactions with the complainant, the issuance and dishonour of cheques, the transfer of part payment by the first respondent, and the subsequent assurances regarding honouring the cheques. These averments were treated as more than a bare or mechanical assertion and were held adequate to satisfy the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed sufficient averments to proceed against the first respondent under Section 141, and the High Court was wrong in quashing the criminal proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a complaint against a partner of a firm is maintainable where, on a holistic reading, it contains sufficient factual averments showing the partner's role in the business and the transaction giving rise to the cheque dishonour; a complaint cannot be quashed merely because further particulars may emerge at trial.

---