Vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act does not extend to HUF members for a karta's cheque offence.

A Hindu Undivided Family does not fall within the expression "company" or "association of individuals" in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for fastening vicarious criminal liability. The court reasoned that, in a penal provision, the enlarged meaning of "company" must be read contextually and cannot be extended absent express inclusion. Mere family relationship among members does not supply the common volition and collective purpose required for an association of individuals. Accordingly, a member of an HUF cannot be prosecuted vicariously for a cheque offence committed by the karta, though prosecution may continue against the principal accused.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Hindu Undivided Family is an "association of individuals" within the meaning of "company" under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, so as to fasten vicarious liability on its members for an offence under Section 138.

Analysis: The expression "person" in the general law is inclusive, but in a penal statute the enlarged meaning of "company" under Section 141 must be construed with reference to the context and object of the enactment. The Court held that a Hindu Undivided Family is a legal entity, but its members do not become co-owners by their own volition with a common purpose, which is the essential feature of an "association of individuals". In the absence of any express inclusion of a Hindu Undivided Family in Section 141, the provision could not be extended to make every member vicariously liable for a cheque issued by the karta. The contrary views taken by other High Courts were not followed.

Conclusion: A Hindu Undivided Family is not a "company" or "association of individuals" under Section 141, and a mere member of the Hindu Undivided Family cannot be prosecuted vicariously for the offence allegedly committed by the karta.

Final Conclusion: The criminal complaints were quashed against the petitioner alone, while the prosecution was permitted to continue against the first accused.

Ratio Decidendi: For vicarious criminal liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the entity sought to be treated as a "company" must fall within the statutory meaning on a contextual construction, and a Hindu Undivided Family does not answer that description merely because its members are connected by family relationship.

---