Security cheque liability under Section 138 and director averments under Section 141 can sustain cheque dishonour prosecution.

A cheque issued as security can still attract Section 138 prosecution if, by the date of presentation, the underlying liability has become legally enforceable. The label attached at issuance does not control; the decisive factor is whether a recoverable debt existed when the cheque was presented, and statutory presumptions apply to a voluntarily handed over signed cheque unless rebutted at trial. For director liability under Section 141, the complaint must contain specific averments that the persons concerned were in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Specific allegations of active involvement, together with the managing director's cheque signature, were treated as sufficient to permit trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a cheque initially issued as security could form the basis of prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when liability had crystallized by the date of presentation; (ii) whether the complaint could proceed against the managing director and the director on the basis of the averments made under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): whether a cheque initially issued as security could form the basis of prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when liability had crystallized by the date of presentation

Analysis: A cheque issued as security is not immune from Section 138 proceedings if, on the date of presentation, the underlying liability has become legally recoverable. The governing test is the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability at the time of presentation, not the label attached to the cheque at the time of issuance. A signed blank cheque, once voluntarily handed over, also attracts the statutory presumptions under the Act, and the drawer must rebut them at trial. On the record, the correspondence relied upon indicated acknowledgment of outstanding dues and proposals for repayment, which prima facie supported the existence of a subsisting liability when the cheque was presented.

Conclusion: The defence that the cheque was only a security instrument did not justify quashing and was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the complaint could proceed against the managing director and the director on the basis of the averments made under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Analysis: For prosecution of directors under Section 141, the complaint must contain averments showing that the persons sought to be made liable were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. The complaint here specifically stated that both officers were actively involved in the day-to-day business operations and financial affairs of the company and linked the cheque transaction to their working relationship. The managing director was also the signatory of the cheque, making his liability direct at the threshold stage. In these circumstances, the allegations were sufficient to permit trial and the issues raised by the petitioners involved disputed facts unsuitable for quashing.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable against both officers and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The petition disclosed no ground for exercise of writ or inherent jurisdiction to terminate the cheque dishonour proceedings, and the criminal complaint was allowed to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A security cheque can attract Section 138 if a legally enforceable debt exists on the date of presentation, and directors can be proceeded against under Section 141 where the complaint contains specific averments of responsibility for the company's business.

---