Vicarious liability in cheque dishonour cases requires arraigning the firm and specific pleadings of responsibility for business conduct.

For a cheque dishonour prosecution against a firm, the firm must be arraigned as the principal accused and the complaint must contain specific averments that the person sought to be made vicariously liable was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. A bare assertion that the accused was a partner is insufficient. Because the cheque was issued in the firm's name, the firm was not impleaded, and the complaint lacked the necessary Section 141 pleadings, the foundational requirements for vicarious criminal liability were not met. The complaint and summoning order were therefore unsustainable and quashing was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint and the summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained when the firm allegedly liable on the cheque was not arraigned as an accused and the complaint did not contain the necessary averments required for vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: For offences committed by a firm or company, the principal accused must be arraigned, and criminal liability of a partner or person connected with the business can arise only when the complaint specifically pleads that such person was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. A mere statement that the accused was a partner is not enough. On the complaint as filed, the cheque was issued in the name of the firm, the firm itself was not made an accused, and the requisite averments attracting Section 141 were absent. The foundational requirements for fastening vicarious criminal liability were therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable against the petitioner and the summoning order could not stand; quashing was warranted in favour of the petitioner.

---