Section 138 company cheque prosecutions fail against a director alone without arraigning the company under Section 141.

A prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could not proceed against a director alone when the cheque was issued on behalf of a company, the company was neither arraigned as an accused nor served with notice, and the requirements of Section 141 were not satisfied. The court held that vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the director in such circumstances, so the complaint was not maintainable. Although the presumption under Section 139 remained unrebutted on the material considered, that did not cure the fatal defect in maintainability arising from non-compliance with Section 141. The conviction and sentence were therefore not sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was maintainable when the cheque was issued on behalf of a company but the company was not arraigned as an accused and no notice was served on it. (ii) Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood rebutted in relation to the alleged legally enforceable debt or liability.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was maintainable when the cheque was issued on behalf of a company but the company was not arraigned as an accused and no notice was served on it.

Analysis: The cheque was issued by the petitioner in the capacity of a director of the company and not in a personal capacity. The notice under Section 138 was issued only to the petitioner, while the company was neither made an accused nor served with notice. Where the drawer of the cheque is a company, compliance with the scheme of Section 141 is necessary before vicarious liability can be fastened on the person in charge of its affairs. In the absence of arraignment of the company and service of notice on it, the complaint could not proceed against the petitioner alone.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable against the petitioner in the absence of the company being impleaded and proceeded against in accordance with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (ii): Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood rebutted in relation to the alleged legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque is admitted, the statute raises a presumption that it was issued towards discharge of a debt or liability. That presumption is rebuttable on a standard of preponderance of probabilities. On the materials considered, the petitioner did not successfully rebut the presumption under Section 139. However, that finding did not cure the fundamental defect arising from non-compliance with Section 141.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 139 was not rebutted, but the prosecution still failed on maintainability for want of compliance with Section 141.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not be sustained because the statutory requirements for proceeding against the company and its director were not satisfied, and the revisional challenge succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where the cheque is issued on behalf of a company, the company must be arraigned as an accused and the statutory requirements of Section 141 must be satisfied before vicarious liability can be imposed on its director or signatory.

---