https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765186 Vicarious criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act depends on a specific pleading that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the time of the cheque dishonour. A former director cannot be summoned merely because of an earlier role in the transaction or the existence of a personal guarantee and pledge agreement. Where the complaint and legal notice contain no averment linking the person to the company's day-to-day affairs at the relevant time, the foundation for summons under Sections 138 and 141 is absent. The decision also indicates that a personal guarantee may create civil liability, but it does not by itself satisfy the requirements for criminal prosecution. en-us Mon, 13 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:24:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765186 Vicarious criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act depends on a specific pleading that the accused was in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the time of the cheque dishonour. A former director cannot be summoned merely because of an earlier role in the transaction or the existence of a personal guarantee and pledge agreement. Where the complaint and legal notice contain no averment linking the person to the company's day-to-day affairs at the relevant time, the foundation for summons under Sections 138 and 141 is absent. The decision also indicates that a personal guarantee may create civil liability, but it does not by itself satisfy the requirements for criminal prosecution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 13 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765186