Director liability under cheque dishonour law requires specific averments of control and responsibility, not mere designation.

Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 imposes vicarious criminal liability on a company director only where the complaint specifically alleges that the person was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. Mere designation as a director is insufficient; the complaint must disclose the accused's role with sufficient particulars. On the pleaded facts discussed, averments that the cheque was issued with the consent and knowledge of the directors and that they were responsible for day-to-day affairs were treated as enough at the prima facie stage, while claims of independent or non-executive status were regarded as matters for trial rather than quashing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint contained sufficient averments to attract vicarious liability of the petitioner under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the orders summoning the petitioner and declining interference suffered from any legal infirmity.

Analysis: Section 141 creates vicarious criminal liability only where the complaint specifically pleads that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Mere designation as a director is not enough, and the complaint must disclose the role played by the person sought to be roped in. On the pleaded facts, the complaint alleged that the petitioner was one of the directors, that the cheque was issued with the consent and knowledge of the directors, and that the directors were in charge of day-to-day affairs and responsible for the company's business. These averments were treated as sufficient to justify summoning at the prima facie stage. The petitioner's reliance on his asserted status as an independent or non-executive director, and on documents said to show lack of involvement, was found to be a matter for trial rather than a basis for quashing at the threshold.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order and the revisional order was rejected. The petitioner was not entitled to be discharged or exempted at the threshold from prosecution under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Ratio Decidendi: For fastening liability on a company director under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint must contain specific averments showing that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time; if such basic averments exist, the matter ordinarily proceeds to trial and cannot be quashed merely on a plea of non-executive status.

---