Cheque signature alone cannot justify adding an accused in a cheque dishonour case without specific liability averments.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a person cannot be added as an accused under Section 319 CrPC merely because he signed the cheque. The complaint must contain specific averments showing how and in what manner the proposed accused was responsible for the transaction or for the conduct of the business. Where the complaint stated that the loan was advanced to one accused for domestic use and contained no allegation against the petitioners or any joint venture, their later impleadment based only on cheque-signing was insufficient. The order allowing addition of the petitioners as accused was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether petitioners could be arrayed as accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 merely because they had signed the cheque, despite the complaint containing no specific averment that the loan was advanced to them or that they were responsible for the transaction.

Analysis: The complaint specifically stated that the loan was advanced to one accused for his domestic use, and there was no allegation that the amount was advanced to the petitioners, the firm, or any joint business venture. Their implication was sought only after evidence, on the basis that they had also signed the cheque. The power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is wide, but it can be exercised only when evidence during inquiry or trial indicates that the proposed accused has committed an offence. In proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, criminal liability cannot be fastened in the absence of specific pleadings showing how and in what manner the person sought to be added was responsible for the cheque transaction or the conduct of the business. Mere signature on the cheque, without foundational allegations of liability, was held insufficient to sustain their impleadment.

Conclusion: The petitioners could not be validly added as accused on the basis of the material referred to, and the order allowing the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a person cannot be arrayed as an accused on the basis of cheque-signing alone unless the complaint contains specific averments showing liability and responsibility for the transaction or conduct of the business, and Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked to cure that foundational absence.

---