Vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act requires specific averments of business responsibility, not mere partnership status.

Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only where the complaint contains specific foundational averments that the accused was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business. Mere status as a partner is insufficient to attract prosecution. As the complaint lacked any specific assertion that the applicants were responsible for the day-to-day business or conduct of the firm, the HC held that the complaint could not be sustained against them and quashed it qua the applicants.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be quashed qua the applicants in the absence of specific averments that they were in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day business of the firm, so as to attract vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that the firm and its partners were liable, but it did not contain any specific assertion that the applicants were in charge of the conduct of the firm's business at the relevant time. The law requires basic facts showing that the person sought to be prosecuted under Section 141 was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the business of the company or firm. Mere status as a partner is not enough to fasten criminal liability in the absence of such foundational averments.

Conclusion: The complaint could not be sustained against the applicants and was quashed qua them.

Ratio Decidendi: Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only when the complaint contains specific averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere designation or partnership status is insufficient.

---