Anx.A-1 complaint do not make out the case that vicarious liability as envisaged under Sec.141 is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is by now well too established that the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act could be said to be committed by a person only if he is a drawer of the dishonoured cheque in question and that the cheque should have issued from an account maintained by such a drawer. In the instant case the averments in the complaint themselves make it clear that the cheque is of the 1st accused and there is no case anywhere in the complaint that the cheque has been issued from the joint account of both the accused or that A-2 is also a signatory to the said cheque. Even in a case where the cheque is issued from a joint account of two persons, it has been held by this Court in Devi v. Haridas reported in 2004 (3) KLT 355, paras 3 to 5, as well as Aparna A.Shah v. Sheth Developers (P) Ltd. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 71 = 2013 (3) KLT 190 (SC), para 28, that so long as one of the joint account holder has not signed the dishonoured cheque, no offence under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act will lie against him, etc. The only exception to that would be in case of vicarious liability as envisaged in Sec.141 of he Act, where the drawer of the cheque as envisaged in that provision were even persons who are responsible for and in charge of and was responsible to the
