Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific averments of control and responsibility at the time of offence.

Vicarious criminal liability of a company director under the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only if the complaint specifically avers that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the time of the offence. Mere designation as a director is not enough. Where the record showed that the person had already resigned before the cheque was issued, and the complaint contained no specific pleading linking him to the transaction or business conduct, proceedings against that accused were unsustainable and liable to be quashed, while the case could continue against the remaining accused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained against a director who had resigned before the cheque date and against whom no specific averment was made that he was 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 is attracted only when the accused, at the time of the offence, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Mere designation as a director is insufficient. A complaint must contain specific averments bringing the accused within the scope of vicarious criminal liability. The record showed that the petitioner had ceased to be a director before the cheque was issued, and the complaint did not plead his role in the company's business or his responsibility for the transaction.

Conclusion: The complaint could not be sustained against the petitioner and was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were terminated as against the petitioner alone, while the case was permitted to continue against the remaining accused.

Ratio Decidendi: For prosecution of a company director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must specifically aver that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offence; absent such averments, and where the accused had already ceased to be a director, criminal proceedings against that accused are unsustainable and may be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---