Omnibus allegations without a specific role do not sustain Section 141 liability against a former director.

The petitioner was arraigned as accused No. 5 in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arising from the dishonour of a cheque issued by B9 Beverages Limited, the first accused company.

The complaint alleged that the petitioner and other directors were responsible for the company’s affairs and the cheque-related liability, but the allegations against the petitioner were stated collectively.

The petitioner sought to quash the complaint against him under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that no specific role had been attributed to him.

1. Whether the complaint’s general allegations that the petitioner was a director responsible for the company’s affairs were sufficient to maintain a prosecution against him under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Whether the complaint should be quashed qua the petitioner in the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for an offence arising from dishonour of a cheque, while Section 141 addresses the vicarious liability of persons in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of, a company’s business when the company commits the offence.

The Court stated that, to arraign a director under Section 141, the complaint must contain specific allegations identifying the director’s role; the complainant’s presumption under Section 139 does not dispense with that requirement.

The Court examined the complaint’s allegations and found that, although it asserted that the directors were responsible for the company’s affairs and referred to their awareness of the relevant agreements and cheque, it did not assign the petitioner a specific role in the cheque’s dishonour.

It therefore held that the allegations against him were omnibus and insufficient to support his prosecution under Section 141, notwithstanding the presumption under Section 139.

The Court clarified that its observations and the quashing order would not affect the complainant’s right to proceed against the remaining accused.