Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires proof of control at the relevant time; unsupported summoning is unsustainable.

Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches only to persons who were in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time, and it must be strictly construed. On the facts stated, one petitioner became an additional director only after the cheques were issued, so no link to issuance could be shown. For the other petitioner, the complaint material did not disclose any specific act or conduct attracting criminal liability, and the dispute appeared at best civil in nature. The text states that the magistrate did not examine these material facts before issuing process, making the summoning order unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners could be prosecuted under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheques allegedly issued by the company when the material on record showed that one petitioner was appointed director long before the cheques and the other became additional director after the cheques were issued, and whether the summoning order was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 attaches only to persons who were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. Vicarious criminal liability is a penal exception and must be strictly construed. The record showed that the cheques were issued on 20.09.2014 by the managing director, who died shortly thereafter, while one petitioner was only appointed additional director on 22.09.2014 and could not have been connected with the issuance of the cheques. As to the other petitioner, the complaint material did not disclose any conduct showing a change in state of mind or any actus reus on her part to attract criminal liability, and at best the dispute disclosed a civil liability. The magistrate was held to have failed to examine these relevant facts before issuing process.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not shown to be criminally liable under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the summoning order was unsustainable.

---