Vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act requires impleading the company and pleading its offence before targeting officers.

A complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot sustain vicarious liability against a Managing Director alone unless the company is impleaded as an accused and the complaint contains a clear averment that the company committed the offence. Where the complaint is filed only against the officer, and no foundational pleading attributes liability to the company, the defect is not a mere technicality. In such circumstances, amendment to add the company is impermissible because it would amount to a complete overhaul of the complaint rather than correction of a curable irregularity.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was maintainable against the Managing Director alone without impleading the company, and whether the complaint could be amended to add the company where no averment of offence by the company was originally made.

Analysis: The complaint proceeded only against the Managing Director, though the alleged cheque liability was that of the company. The governing principle applied was that Section 141 creates vicarious liability only when the company itself is shown to have committed the offence under Section 138, and arraigning the company as an accused is an imperative condition for fastening liability on persons in charge of its business. A mere technical misdescription or omission in the parties array may sometimes be curable, but that is confined to cases where the complaint already contains the necessary averments against the company and only the memo of parties requires correction. Here, the complaint contained no pleading attributing commission of the offence to the company at all, so the defect was foundational and any amendment would amount to a complete overhaul of the complaint rather than correction of a simple infirmity.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable against the Managing Director alone, and amendment to introduce the company was not permitted.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the dismissal of the complaint failed, and the petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For prosecution under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the company must be impleaded as an accused and the complaint must contain an averment that the company committed the offence; absent such foundational pleading, vicarious liability cannot be imposed on its officers by amendment alone.

---