Vicarious liability in cheque dishonour cases requires specific pleadings and proof of control over company affairs.

Vicarious liability for dishonour of cheque prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act must be specifically pleaded and strictly established. A complaint cannot sustain a summoning order against a person merely on a bald assertion of directorship or general responsibility; it must set out the role and manner in which the person was in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Where company records do not show the person as a director at the relevant time and the cheques were issued by the Managing Director, criminal process against that person is unsustainable. The summoning order and consequential proceedings were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order and consequential proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained against a person who was not shown to be a director in the company records and was not demonstrated to be in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time.

Analysis: Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is vicarious and must be strictly construed. A bald assertion that a person was a director or was responsible for the business is insufficient unless the complaint spells out the role and manner in which such person was in charge of the company's affairs. The company records placed on record did not show the petitioner as a director at the relevant time, while the material indicated that the cheques were issued by the Managing Director. In these circumstances, the criminal process could not be sustained merely on a broad allegation of responsibility, as the material suggested at best a civil dispute and not criminal culpability against the petitioner.

Conclusion: The summoning order against the petitioner could not be sustained and was set aside, along with the consequential order.

---