Specific averments are essential to fasten vicarious liability in cheque dishonour complaints against firm partners.

A complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot sustain vicarious criminal liability unless it specifically pleads that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business. A general assertion that partners handled day-to-day affairs or that the firm acted through its partners is insufficient, because the two statutory ingredients under Section 141(1) must be pleaded conjunctively. On that basis, the complaint did not meet the threshold for proceeding against the appellant and was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 contained the requisite specific averments to fasten vicarious liability on the appellant and justify continuation of the criminal complaint against him.

Analysis: The complaint stated only that the accused partners were responsible for the day-to-day conduct and business of the firm and that the firm, through its partners, purchased goods on credit. It did not contain any clear and specific averment that the appellant was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm when the offence was committed. The statutory requirement under Section 141(1) is that both ingredients must be pleaded and read conjunctively. Mere general reference to partnership or day-to-day business responsibility is insufficient to attract vicarious criminal liability. In these circumstances, the materials in the complaint did not satisfy the threshold required for proceeding against the appellant, and the complaint could be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable against the appellant for want of mandatory averments under Section 141(1), and the criminal complaint was liable to be quashed as against him.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded, and the impugned order declining quashing was set aside insofar as he was concerned.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, vicarious liability can be fastened only if the complaint specifically avers that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business; a bare or general statement is insufficient.

---