Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility; directorship and general management assertions are insufficient for prosecution.

Vicarious criminal liability for cheque dishonour under Section 141 requires specific averments that the accused was, at the time of the offence, both in charge of and responsible for the company's business. Directorship alone is insufficient. General allegations that directors managed day-to-day business and regular affairs do not establish an individual director's role, responsibility for the relevant transaction, or involvement in issuing the dishonoured cheque. In the absence of such foundational pleadings, prosecution of the director cannot validly continue and amounts to abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether a criminal proceeding for cheque dishonour against a company director can continue where the complaint contains only general assertions about the directors managing the company, without specific averments identifying the director's responsibility for the conduct of the company's business or role in the issuance of the dishonoured cheque.

Analysis: Vicarious criminal liability for an offence by a company arises only on fulfilment of the cumulative conditions under Section 141: the person must, when the offence was committed, have been both in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Directorship alone does not establish those conditions. The complaint made only a general allegation that the directors managed the day-to-day business and regular affairs of the company; it did not attribute an individual role, identify the cheque signatory, or state how the petitioner was responsible for the relevant transaction or business conduct. Such general averments did not satisfy the foundational requirements for prosecution of the petitioner.

Conclusion: The statutory requirements for fastening vicarious liability upon the petitioner were absent, and continuation of the proceeding against him constituted abuse of process of law.

---