Cheque dishonour liability requires specific averments that a non-signatory was in charge of the company's business.

Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can extend to a person other than the cheque signatory only if the complaint specifically alleges that, at the time of the offence, the person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business under Section 141(1). A bare prosecution against a non-signatory is insufficient unless both statutory ingredients are pleaded. As the complaints contained no assertion that the appellant was in charge of the company's business when the offence was committed, prosecution under Section 138 read with Section 141 was not maintainable and the cognizance order was quashed against the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether an accused who was not a signatory to the cheque could be prosecuted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the absence of specific averments satisfying Section 141 of that Act.

Analysis: Liability under Section 138, in the case of a company, can be fastened on persons other than the signatory only when the complaint contains the necessary averments that, at the time of commission of the offence, such person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The complaint must plead both ingredients required by Section 141(1). On the face of the complaints, there was no assertion that the appellant was in charge of the business of the company when the offence was committed.

Conclusion: The appellant could not be prosecuted under Section 138 with the aid of Section 141, and the cognizance order was quashed as against the appellant.

---