Former director liability under cheque dishonour law fails where resignation preceded presentation and no statutory notice was served.

Vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be fastened on a former director who had resigned before the cheque was presented and who was not shown to be in charge of the company at the relevant time. Liability under Section 138 also depends on statutory demand notice and non-payment within the prescribed period; where no notice was issued or served on the former director, the prosecution could not proceed. On these admitted facts, the criminal proceedings were quashed as an abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could continue against a person who had resigned as director before presentation of the cheque and against whom no demand notice was issued or served.

Analysis: Liability under Section 138 is not complete on mere issuance or dishonour of a cheque; it is attracted only when the statutory demand notice is issued to the drawer and payment is not made within the prescribed time. Under Section 141, a director can be proceeded against only if, at the time the offence was committed, he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business, or if there is material showing consent, connivance, or neglect. On the admitted facts, the petitioner had resigned before the cheque was presented for encashment, was no longer in charge of the company, and was not served with any demand notice.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed and were quashed as an abuse of the judicial process.

Ratio Decidendi: A former director who had ceased to be in charge of the company before the cheque was presented, and against whom no statutory demand notice was issued, cannot be fastened with vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for an offence under Section 138.

---