Authorised signatory is not the drawer under cheque dishonour law, and vicarious liability needs the company as accused.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies only when the cheque is drawn on an account maintained by the accused, and an authorised signatory of a company is not treated as the drawer merely because he signed for the company. The Court also held that vicarious liability under Section 141 cannot be invoked against the signatory alone unless the company is arraigned as the principal offender. Accordingly, where the cheque was issued on the company's account and the company was not prosecuted as an accused, the complaint against the signatory alone was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an authorised signatory of a company can be treated as the drawer of a cheque, and whether a cheque drawn on the company's account can be said to be on an account maintained by him for the purposes of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether a prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can proceed against the authorised signatory in the absence of arraigning the company as an accused under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether an authorised signatory of a company can be treated as the drawer of a cheque, and whether a cheque drawn on the company's account can be said to be on an account maintained by him for the purposes of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Section 138 fastens criminal liability on the drawer of a cheque drawn on an account maintained by him. The expression "on an account maintained by him" refers to the account holder-bank relationship and cannot be extended to an authorised signatory merely because he signs on behalf of the company. A company acts through human agency, but that agency does not make the signatory the drawer or the maintainer of the company's account. The provision being penal in nature must be strictly construed, and the statutory language cannot be expanded to include an authorised signatory as the drawer where the account belongs to the company.

Conclusion: The authorised signatory is not the drawer of the cheque for the purpose of Section 138, and a cheque drawn on the company's account is not an account maintained by him.

Issue (ii): Whether a prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can proceed against the authorised signatory in the absence of arraigning the company as an accused under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Section 141 is an exception creating vicarious liability for persons in charge of a company, but the company itself must first be arraigned as the principal offender. The condition precedent for invoking vicarious liability is the commission of the offence by the company and its prosecution as an accused. In the absence of the company being made an accused, liability cannot be fastened on the director or authorised signatory in his individual capacity. The presumption under Section 139 may operate, but it cannot override the mandatory requirement of Section 141.

Conclusion: The prosecution against the accused could not be sustained without impleading the company, and the complaint was not maintainable against him alone.

Final Conclusion: The conviction could not be restored because the cheque was drawn on the company's account and the company was not prosecuted as the principal offender; the appeal therefore failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 138 liability, the cheque must be drawn on an account maintained by the accused, and where the cheque is issued on a company's account by an authorised signatory, criminal liability can extend to the signatory only through Section 141 after the company is arraigned as an accused.

---