Cheque dishonour liability turns on the drawer's identity, and acquittal stands where ownership and signatory status are unproved.

Liability for dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to the drawer of the cheque, and a proprietary concern has no separate legal identity from its proprietor. Section 141 does not create vicarious liability for a proprietary concern as such. On the record, the cheque and bank account stood in the name of the actual proprietor, whose evidence remained unrebutted, while the respondent was not shown to be the signatory or otherwise legally liable for the dishonour. The attempt to summon the actual proprietor had also failed, so no infirmity was found in the trial court's view and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the respondent was liable to be interfered with in an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, when the cheque was issued in the name of a proprietary concern and the complainant failed to prove that the respondent was its proprietor or the drawer of the cheque.

Analysis: Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 fastens on the drawer of the cheque. A proprietary concern has no separate legal identity from its proprietor, and Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not create vicarious liability for a proprietary concern as such. The record showed that the cheque and bank account stood in the name of the actual proprietor, whose evidence remained unrebutted. The respondent was not shown to be the signatory or the person legally liable for dishonour, and the attempt to summon the actual proprietor had failed. On the evidence, no infirmity was found in the trial court's view.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and the challenge to it failed.

---