Director liability in cheque dishonour cases depends on specific averments of control and responsibility, not title alone.

Complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against non-signatory directors require a specific averment that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Mere designation as a director is insufficient, although a managing director, joint managing director, or cheque signatory may stand on a different footing. A director facing summons cannot seek quashing merely because no further particulars are pleaded, but quashing may be justified where sterling incontrovertible material shows the contrary. On the stated facts, the complaints and summoning orders failed because the requisite averments were absent, and the orders quashing the process were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against non-signatory directors could be quashed for want of a specific averment that they were in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company's business at the time the offence was committed, and whether such directors could avoid prosecution under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 without producing sterling incontrovertible material showing the contrary.

Analysis: Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises only where the complaint specifically avers that the person sought to be prosecuted was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. Mere designation as a director is insufficient, though a managing director, joint managing director, or cheque signatory stands on a different footing. A director who is summoned on the strength of proper averments cannot secure quashing merely because no further particulars of role are stated; however, quashing may be justified if the director produces sterling incontrovertible material or acceptable circumstances demonstrating that he was not so entrusted at the time of the offence.

Conclusion: The complaints and summoning orders failed because the averments were deficient and did not even allege that the respondents were in charge of or responsible for the company's business when the offence was committed. The revisional court's orders quashing the process were upheld.

---