Section 141 liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act may extend to a Hindu undivided family when participation is specifically pleaded.

Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires specific averments that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time, and the complaint here was sufficient because it alleged active participation in the day-to-day affairs of the Hindu undivided family and relied on supporting transaction documents. The Court also held that a Hindu undivided family may fall within the inclusive expression "company" or "association of individuals" for Section 141 purposes when the requisite factual foundation is pleaded. A contrary view of another High Court was treated as persuasive only. The challenge to the process order was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint contained the necessary averments to proceed against a member of a Hindu undivided family under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) whether a Hindu undivided family can be treated as an association of individuals for the purposes of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the decision of another High Court to the contrary was binding.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint contained the necessary averments to proceed against a member of a Hindu undivided family under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Section 141 fastens liability only on persons who, at the time of commission of the offence, were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. The complaint specifically averred that the applicant was actively participating in the day-to-day affairs of the Hindu undivided family and assisting in its business, and those averments were supported by the transaction documents relied upon in the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint disclosed the necessary factual foundation to proceed against the applicant, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a Hindu undivided family can be treated as an association of individuals for the purposes of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the decision of another High Court to the contrary was binding.

Analysis: Section 141 contains an inclusive definition of company that extends to a firm or other association of individuals. The judgment followed the view that a Hindu undivided family may fall within that expression for the purposes of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the complaint contains the requisite averments of participation and responsibility. It also held that a decision of another High Court has only persuasive value and does not bind this Court.

Conclusion: A Hindu undivided family was treated as within the statutory expression for the purpose of Section 141 on the facts pleaded, and the contrary view of the other High Court was not binding.

Final Conclusion: The applicant's challenge to the process order was rejected and the criminal application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: For prosecution under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint must specifically aver that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time, and a Hindu undivided family can be treated as covered by the inclusive expression used in the section when such factual averments are made.

---