Director liability in cheque-dishonour cases requires specific pleadings showing responsibility for company business at the relevant time.

A director's liability in a cheque-dishonour prosecution depends on specific averments in the complaint showing that, at the relevant time, the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A complaint that merely names the directors, without pleading the manner of their involvement or responsibility, does not meet that standard, and the absence of such pleadings can be examined at the threshold. On the facts noted, the complaint lacked the necessary averments against the director, so the revisional court was justified in setting aside the issuance of notice.

---

---

Issues: Whether a director of a company can challenge, at the threshold, the issuance of notice and summoning in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when the complaint contains no specific averments showing that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business.

Analysis: Liability of a director in a prosecution based on cheque dishonour requires basic and specific averments in the complaint under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 showing how and in what manner the director was responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time. A complaint that merely names the directors, without any substantive pleading about their role, does not satisfy this requirement. The authorities relied upon by the petitioner did not displace the settled requirement of specific pleadings, and the challenge to such absence of averments was open to examination at the threshold.

Conclusion: The complaint did not contain the necessary averments against the director, and the revisional court was justified in setting aside the issuance of notice. The challenge fails.

---