certain categories of persons in charge, as well as the company would be deemed to be liable for the offences under Section 138. Thus, the statutory intendment is absolutely plain. As is perceptible, the provision makes the functionaries and the companies to be liable and that is by deeming fiction. The words ‘every person at the time offence was committed’ used in Section 141(1) are not without significance and the same indicates the criminal liability on the date of offence, alleged to have been committed and unless a specific averment was made in the complaint that at the time, when the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company, the requirements of Section 141 would not be satisfied as held in Central Bank Of India Versus Asian Global Limited3 . Therefore, for attaching liability against the non executive director, there must be some allegation in the complaint and material to substantiate such allegation that the non executive director is responsible for the day to day affairs of the company, otherwise no criminal liability can be attached to such non executive director, who is not looking after the day to day affairs of the company as held by the Apex Court in K.K. Ahuja v V.K.Vora4 . In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra and in the absence of any specific allegations and material in support of it, the petitioner, who is not a drawer or maker of the cheque, as defined under Section 7 of the Act and not looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company, the proceedings against him cannot be continued.
