Cheque dishonour liability requires the drawer or signatory; proceedings cannot continue without a statutory basis for vicarious liability.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 fastens criminal liability only on the drawer of the dishonoured cheque, and vicarious liability cannot be presumed without a clear statutory foundation. Where the cheque bore the signature of the complainant's wife and not the petitioner's, the essential ingredient of being the drawer or signatory was not satisfied against the petitioner. The proceedings under Section 138 were therefore not sustainable against him, and the summoning order was set aside. The complainant was left free to pursue the allegation under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could continue against a person who was neither the drawer nor the signatory of the cheque.

Analysis: Liability for an offence under Section 138 attaches to the drawer of the cheque. Penal provisions creating criminal liability are construed strictly, and vicarious liability in criminal law cannot be inferred in the absence of a specific statutory basis. Since the cheque in question was shown to bear the signature of the complainant's wife and not that of the petitioner, the essential ingredient of being the drawer/signatory was not satisfied as against the petitioner.

Conclusion: The proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could not be sustained against the petitioner, and the summoning order was set aside. The complainant was left at liberty to pursue the allegation under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, criminal liability lies only against the drawer of the dishonoured cheque, and a person who is not the drawer or signatory cannot be prosecuted absent a valid statutory basis for vicarious liability.

---