Director liability under cheque dishonour law requires specific averments of control over company business, not mere designation.

Vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires a specific averment 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 insufficient. Where the complaint contains only general allegations and does not attribute any role in the company's day-to-day affairs, the statutory precondition for prosecution is not met. On the stated material, the accused was shown only as a nominee director, so the prosecution could not be sustained and the summoning order was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a director can be prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the absence of specific averments in the complaint that he was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time.

Analysis: For fastening vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint must specifically aver that, at the time of the offence, the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. Mere status as a director is not enough. Where the complaint contains only general allegations and does not attribute any role in the day-to-day affairs of the company, the statutory requirements for prosecution are not satisfied. On the material placed, the applicant was shown only as a nominee director, and the complaint lacked the necessary specific assertions.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the applicant could not be sustained, and the summoning order, as affirmed in revision, was liable to be quashed.

---