Director liability in cheque dishonour cases depends on specific averments and supporting material showing responsibility for company business.

Vicarious liability of a director in a cheque dishonour prosecution requires specific averments that the director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; mere designation as director is insufficient. Supporting contemporaneous material, such as emails or notice correspondence, may be considered at the summoning stage to show prima facie involvement in business affairs. Where the record discloses such material, process may be sustained; where the complaint contains only general allegations of involvement without particulars or supporting documents, summoning is not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order in a prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed against a director in the absence of specific averments and supporting material showing that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time.

Analysis: For fastening vicarious liability on a director in a cheque dishonour case, mere designation as a director is not enough. The complaint must contain a specific assertion that the person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business when the offence was committed. Supporting material such as correspondence or other contemporaneous documents may be relied upon at the summoning stage to show prima facie involvement in the company's affairs. Where the record contains emails and notice material indicating active participation in business transactions, a prima facie case for summoning may be made out. Conversely, where the allegation is only that the person is a director and is otherwise involved in day-to-day affairs without particulars or supporting material showing actual role, that is insufficient to sustain process.

Conclusion: The summoning order was upheld against the director against whom the record disclosed prima facie involvement in the company's business, and was quashed against the director against whom no specific role was shown.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings survived in part and were set aside in part, depending on whether the complaint and accompanying material disclosed the requisite role for vicarious liability under the cheque dishonour law.

Ratio Decidendi: Vicarious liability of a director in a prosecution for dishonour of cheque arises only when there are specific averments and supporting material showing that the director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time; bare designation as director is insufficient.

---