Specific averments for vicarious liability under cheque dishonour law were absent, so the prosecution could not continue against one partner.

For vicarious liability in a cheque dishonour prosecution, the complaint must contain specific averments showing that the accused partner or designated partner was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time; vague assertions that the person was a key person or jointly liable are insufficient. Reading the complaint as a whole, the Court found that it did not disclose the petitioner's prima facie role with the required specificity, especially where he denied involvement and said another partner handled the financial decisions and cheque issuance. The prosecution was therefore unsustainable against him, and the proceeding was quashed only as to the petitioner while continuing against the other accused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint contained the mandatory averments to fasten vicarious liability on the petitioner as a partner/designated partner under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, so as to justify continuation of the prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: For attracting vicarious liability in a prosecution under the cheque dishonour law, the complaint must contain clear and specific averments showing that the person sought to be prosecuted was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the relevant time. A complaint may be read as a whole and need not reproduce the statutory language verbatim, but a bald assertion that the accused was a key person or was jointly and severally liable is not enough where the petitioner has specifically denied involvement and asserted that another partner alone handled the financial decisions and issuance of the cheque. In such a situation, the complaint must disclose, at least prima facie, the role of the petitioner so that criminal process is not issued without satisfying the mandatory requirements of section 141. The Court found that the averments in the complaint did not meet that standard in relation to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The requirement of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not satisfied against the petitioner, and the prosecution could not be sustained qua him.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceeding was quashed in relation to the petitioner alone, while the complaint was left undisturbed against the other accused persons.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution based on cheque dishonour, a person cannot be proceeded against on the basis of a vague or omnibus description as a responsible partner or key person; the complaint must contain specific averments showing that such person was in charge of and responsible for the business at the time of the offence.

---