https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295593 Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies only where the complaint contains factual averments that the accused director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business when the offence was committed. A bare description as a director is insufficient to attract vicarious liability. Here, the complaint attributed the transaction and cheque to the company and its managing director, but did not plead specific facts satisfying the statutory requirement against the petitioners. The prosecution could therefore not be sustained against them, and the complaint and summoning order were quashed as to the petitioners. en-us Wed, 10 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:39:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295593 Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies only where the complaint contains factual averments that the accused director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business when the offence was committed. A bare description as a director is insufficient to attract vicarious liability. Here, the complaint attributed the transaction and cheque to the company and its managing director, but did not plead specific facts satisfying the statutory requirement against the petitioners. The prosecution could therefore not be sustained against them, and the complaint and summoning order were quashed as to the petitioners. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 10 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295593