Vicarious liability in cheque dishonour cases requires specific averments of control and responsibility at the relevant time.

Vicarious liability in cheque dishonour prosecutions does not arise from directorship alone; the complaint must specifically aver that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Applying that principle, the former director who had ceased to hold office before the cheques were issued could not be proceeded against on the material then available, so the summoning order was quashed for him. As to the other directors, the complaint and notice showed their active role and responsibility when the cheques were issued and matured, so the proceedings were permitted to continue and their defence was left for trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed in respect of a former director who had ceased to hold office before the cheques were issued, and whether the complaint contained sufficient averments to proceed against the other directors under Section 141.

Analysis: Liability under Section 141 is not automatic from the status of being a director; the complaint must specifically aver that, at the relevant time, the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The Court distinguished between a person who had ceased to be a director before the cheques were issued and dishonoured, and directors who were admittedly in office when the stop-payment instructions were issued and the cheques matured. At the summoning stage, the complaint and notice disclosed active participation and responsibility of the latter directors, leaving their defence to be examined in trial. The former director, having ceased to be associated with the company long before the transaction, could not be fastened with vicarious liability on the material then available.

Conclusion: The summoning order was quashed only in respect of the petitioner who had ceased to be a director before issuance of the cheques, while the proceedings were allowed to continue against the other two petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed in part, with partial quashing of the criminal process and continuation of the complaint against the remaining petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: For fastening vicarious liability on company officials in a cheque dishonour prosecution, the complaint must contain specific averments showing that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; a person who had ceased to be a director before the transaction cannot be proceeded against on such material.

---