Cheque dishonour notice to a trust can suffice for trustees; specific pleadings support vicarious liability at summoning stage.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, notice addressed to a trust through its trustees satisfied the requirement of notice to the drawer, and separate individual notices to each trustee were held unnecessary. The analysis applied the vicarious liability principle under Section 141 to a trust as an entity analogous to a company or association, so persons shown to be in charge of and responsible for its business could be proceeded against. Specific pleadings that the trustees were involved in the trust's business and transaction were sufficient at the summoning stage, while objections based on lack of knowledge or due diligence were treated as matters for trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether trustees of a trust, being the drawer of dishonoured cheques, could be proceeded against under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 without separate individual notice, and whether the pleadings were sufficient to attract vicarious liability against them.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires notice in writing to be given to the drawer of the cheque. A trust issuing the cheques was treated as the drawer, and notice addressed to the trust through its trustees satisfied the requirement of proviso (b) to Section 138. The Court applied the principle that Section 141 creates vicarious liability for persons in charge of and responsible for the business of the company or association, and held that a trust falls within that expression. On that basis, separate notices to each trustee were held unnecessary. The amended complaints also contained specific averments that the petitioners were trustees, were in charge of the trust's business, and were involved in the transaction, which was sufficient at the summoning stage to invoke Section 141. Any defence based on lack of knowledge or due diligence was held to be a matter for trial.

Conclusion: The trustees could be proceeded against, separate individual notice was not required, and the challenge to their summoning failed.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were dismissed and the summoning order was sustained, leaving the petitioners to raise their defence in the complaint proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, notice to the drawer is sufficient, and where the drawer is a trust or analogous entity, persons shown to be in charge of and responsible for its business may be proceeded against under Section 141 without separate individual notices.

---