Vicarious liability under cheque dishonour law requires no separate notice to every company official if the complaint shows business control.

For liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, no separate Section 138 notice is required to each person sought to be made vicariously liable once notice is issued to the drawer company and its authorised signatory. The complaint was also sufficient because it contained factual averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business, including a specific role in seeking time for payment and assuring funds. In quashing proceedings, such averments are not to be tested hyper-technically; the issue of actual responsibility is for evidence at trial. The criminal proceedings were therefore allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a separate notice under Section 138 was required to be issued to a person sought to be made liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether the complaint contained sufficient averments to proceed against the petitioner, a commercial manager, under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether a separate notice under Section 138 was required to be issued to a person sought to be made liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The requirement under Section 138(b) is that the payee must issue notice to the drawer of the cheque within the prescribed time. Where the cheque is drawn on behalf of a company through its authorised signatory, notice to the company and its drawer-signatory satisfies that requirement. Section 141 creates vicarious liability for persons in charge of the company's business, but it does not create a separate notice requirement for each such person.

Conclusion: No separate notice to the petitioner was required, and the objection based on want of notice failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint contained sufficient averments to proceed against the petitioner, a commercial manager, under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The complaint specifically stated that accused Nos. 2 to 7 were in charge of the company's affairs and further attributed a role to the petitioner in requesting time for payment with a promise to make funds available. In a proceeding for quashing, the complaint cannot be dissected hyper-technically, and if the averments disclose a possible case of responsibility and control, the matter must be tested at trial. Whether the petitioner was ly in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business was held to be a matter for evidence.

Conclusion: The averments were sufficient to allow the prosecution to continue against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition to quash the criminal proceedings was not sustainable, and the matter was left to proceed before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: For liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a complaint need only contain factual averments showing that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business, and no separate notice is required to every such person under Section 138(b) beyond notice to the drawer of the cheque.

---