What are the minimum requirements to be satisfied before a court issues process to a company, firm, an association of individuals or a person who are arrayed as an accused’ for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act, for short)? Under what circumstances, persons referred to in section 141 of the Act be proceeded against, for offence under section 138 of the Act? Can a person who does not issue any cheque and who does not even maintain an account be held guilty of offence under section 138 of the Act? These are the important questions which I shall decide in this case.

2. Respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer, a government official filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court alleging offence alleged against a registered society and its President under section 138 of the Act. The society represented by its secretary is described as first accused and its President who is alleged to be the person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the society is arrayed as the second accused.

3. As per the complaint, Rs.39,619/- was allegedly due from ‘the accused’ to the government on account of hiring combined harvest machine ‘controlled by the complainant. Towards discharge of the said debt or liability, second accused allegedly signed and issued the cheque for and on behalf of the society, personally undertaking to discharge the liability of the society. The cheque when presented for encashment was dishonoured for the reason, ‘funds insufficient’. Notices were issued to both accused but they did not send any reply. Thereafter, complying with the formalities under the Act. A complaint was filed against hem and the case was taken on file and process was issued to petitioner, as secretary of first accused-society. He seeks to quash the proceedings initiated against him.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner cannot be proceeded against for offence under section 138 of the Act, since there is nothing on record to show that the dishonored cheque was drawn by petitioner on his account. It is also submitted that records will not reveal prima facie that petitioner was in charge of an responsible for the conduct of the business of first accused society and hence he cannot be proceeded under Section 141, for offence under section 138 will lie against the petitioner, is the argument.

5. While proceeding to consider the question whether petitioner can be proceeded for offence under section 138 of the Act or not, several questions pop up before me. To give an answer, a reading of section 138 and section 141 of the Act is absolutely necessary. I shall therefore extract the relevant portions of those provisions which are necessary for the disposal of this case, as hereunder:

“S. 138: Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account—Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this act, be punished with imprisonment for a terms which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:”

Section 141 reads as follows:

“S. 141 Offences by companies.—(1) If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and