Specific averment required to prosecute non-signatory directors; general allegations are insufficient and proceedings cannot be sustained.

For prosecution of non-signatory directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must contain a specific averment that they were in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offence. Mere designation as a director, or general statements about business involvement, is insufficient. As the petitioners were not shown to be cheque signatories and the complaints lacked the required foundational allegation, the criminal proceedings against them could not be sustained. The proceedings were quashed insofar as they related to the petitioners, and the complaint cases were dropped against them.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaints disclosed the requisite averments to proceed against the petitioners, who were directors but not signatories to the cheques, under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the proceedings against them were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: Liability under Section 141 arises only where the complaint contains a specific averment that, at the time the offence was committed, the person sought to be prosecuted was in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the business of the company. Mere designation as a director is insufficient. Since the petitioners were not shown to be cheque signatories, and the complaints contained only general statements that they were concerned with business dealings or that cheques were issued after mutual consultations, the basic statutory requirement was not met. In the absence of the foundational allegation required by law, continuation of the criminal proceedings against them could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the petitioners were quashed and the complaint cases were dropped insofar as they related to them.

Ratio Decidendi: For prosecution of non-signatory directors under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint must specifically aver that they were in charge of, or responsible for, the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offence; absent such averment, criminal process cannot be sustained.

---