Company arraignment is mandatory in cheque dishonour prosecutions; leave to appeal was refused for non-impleadment.

In a Section 138 prosecution based on a cheque drawn by a company, the company must be arraigned as an accused to sustain liability under Section 141; proceedings against persons in charge rest only on vicarious liability. The High Court found no arguable ground to interfere with the acquittal because the company had not been impleaded, and the trial court's view on that defect was left undisturbed. Leave to appeal was therefore refused and the application rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the order of acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when the cheque was drawn on behalf of a company but the company was not arraigned as an accused.

Analysis: The complaint and evidence showed that the cheque was drawn by a company. In a prosecution attracting Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arraigning the company as an accused is imperative, and the persons in charge can be proceeded against only on the basis of vicarious liability. The settled law, as relied upon by the Court, required the company to be made a party accused for sustaining the prosecution.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was not granted. The application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was left undisturbed because no arguable ground was found to interfere with the trial court's view on non-impleadment of the company in the cheque dishonour prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: For maintaining a prosecution under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arraigning the company as an accused is mandatory, and other persons can be proceeded against only on the basis of vicarious liability.

---