Vicarious liability under cheque dishonour law requires specific averments that the accused controlled company business when the offence occurred.

A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot sustain vicarious criminal liability against a company officer unless it specifically pleads that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time, or that he issued the cheque on behalf of the company. Where the allegations are only omnibus and directed primarily against the company, the foundational requirements of Section 141 are not met, and cognizance against the officer cannot be sustained. The revisional order quashing cognizance was therefore found to be legally sound, and the challenge to it failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 contained the necessary averments to fasten vicarious liability under Section 141 on the respondent, and whether the revisional order quashing cognizance was illegal.

Analysis: The complaint did not contain specific averments that the respondent was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time or that he issued the cheque on behalf of the company. The allegations were omnibus and primarily directed against the company. Under the settled law, a person cannot be subjected to criminal process on vicarious liability unless the complaint specifically pleads the ingredients of Section 141, namely that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business when the offence was committed. In the absence of such foundational pleadings, the Magistrate's process could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The revisional order was held to be free from illegality, and the challenge to it failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed, and the order setting aside cognizance against the respondent was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Vicarious criminal liability of a company officer under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be fastened only when the complaint specifically avers that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time.

---