TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the complaint disclosed the requisite specific averments to proceed against the petitioner under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed as against the petitioner.
Analysis: Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises only where the complaint contains clear and specific averments that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm or company. A mere description of the petitioner as an agent, without any averment that he issued the cheques or led the business of the firm, is insufficient to attract vicarious criminal liability. On the facts pleaded, the complaint did not disclose the necessary ingredients for proceeding against the petitioner.
Conclusion: The proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were not maintainable against the petitioner and were rightly quashed as against him.
Ratio Decidendi: Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be imposed in the absence of specific averments showing that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time.
TaxTMI 
