Vicarious liability under cheque dishonour law requires specific pleadings of control over company business; office-bearer status alone is insufficient.

Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires clear and specific pleadings that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time. Mere office-bearer status or repetition of statutory language is not enough. If liability is based on consent, connivance, or negligence under Section 141(2), the complaint must set out material particulars showing how that responsibility arises. As the complaint only described the petitioners as management committee office bearers and did not connect them to the cheque transaction or business control, they could not be validly summoned and the proceedings against them were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners, being office bearers of the company and not signatories to the cheque, could be summoned for an offence under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the absence of specific averments that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.

Analysis: Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is vicarious and must be strictly pleaded. A complaint must contain clear and specific averments showing that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time. Mere designation as an office bearer or reproduction of statutory language is insufficient. Where reliance is placed on consent, connivance, or negligence under Section 141(2), the complaint must also plead material particulars showing how such liability arises. On the pleaded facts, the complaint alleged only that the petitioners were office bearers of the management committee, while the cheque was issued and signed by other accused. No adequate averment showed the petitioners' role in the transaction or their control over the business affairs.

Conclusion: The petitioners could not be validly summoned on the basis of the complaint as framed, and the proceedings qua them were liable to be quashed.

---