Vicarious liability under Section 141 cannot extend to a mere authorised account operator of a sole proprietorship.

Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be fastened on a person who is merely authorised to operate the bank account of a sole proprietorship concern. A sole proprietorship has no separate legal existence from its proprietor, and the debt liability remains with the proprietor, not with a non-proprietor signatory or account operator. Because the mandate only authorised cheque operation and there was no proof that the accused was the proprietor or otherwise personally liable, the refusal to grant leave to appeal against acquittal was upheld and the acquittal remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal should be granted against acquittal in a cheque dishonour prosecution where the cheque was drawn on the account of a sole proprietorship concern and the accused was only shown as an authorised person, and whether vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be fastened on such accused.

Analysis: A sole proprietorship has no separate legal existence apart from its proprietor, but liability for its debts remains that of the proprietor and not of a third person merely authorised to operate the account. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 applies to companies and, by its inclusive language, to partnership firms and associations of individuals; it does not extend to a sole proprietorship concern. The mandate produced only authorised the accused to draw cheques and operate the bank account and did not make him personally liable for the firm's obligations. In the absence of evidence that he was the proprietor or that statutory vicarious liability could otherwise attach, the trial court's view was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was rightly refused and the acquittal was maintained; the accused could not be prosecuted and punished on the footing of vicarious liability.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the acquittal failed because the statutory scheme did not permit fastening criminal liability on a non-proprietor merely on account of authority to operate the sole proprietorship's bank account.

Ratio Decidendi: Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be extended to a sole proprietorship concern or to a person who is only authorised to operate its account, absent proof that he was the proprietor or otherwise personally liable.

---