Specific averments are essential for director liability under cheque dishonour law; bare designation as director is insufficient.

Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not sustain vicarious liability against directors under Section 141 unless it contained specific averments that they were in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time, or that they acted with knowledge, consent, connivance, or negligence. A bare assertion that the accused were directors was insufficient, and deficiencies in the complaint itself could not be cured by the sworn statement or accompanying material. In proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court could quash the prosecution where the statutory ingredients were not made out and continuation would amount to abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint disclosed the requisite specific averments to fasten vicarious liability on the directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, so as to sustain the proceedings under Section 138 against them.

Analysis: The complaint contained only a bald assertion that the petitioners were directors and were therefore liable under Section 141. It did not aver that they were in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the relevant time, nor did it allege knowledge, consent, connivance, or negligence on their part. The complaint had to stand on its own, and the sworn statement or accompanying material could not cure the absence of foundational allegations in the complaint itself. In proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court could quash criminal proceedings where the ingredients of the offence were not made out and continuation would amount to abuse of process.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the petitioners were liable to be quashed, as the complaint did not satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---