As per case facts, the matter arose from prosecutions launched against company officers under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning cheque dishonour. The appeal sought ... clarification on the necessary averments in a complaint for extending criminal liability to company officers. The question arose regarding whether a complaint under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act needs to specifically state that the accused person was in charge of, or responsible for, the company's business conduct, or if a director is automatically deemed responsible and guilty. Furthermore, it questioned if, specific averments notwithstanding, signatories or managing directors could still be proceeded against without them. Finally, the Supreme Court held that it is essential to specifically aver in the complaint that the accused person was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company's business at the time of the offence, as merely being a director does not automatically make one liable under Section 141. However, signatories to a dishonoured cheque and Managing Directors or Joint Managing Directors, by virtue of their office, are considered in charge of and responsible for the company's business and thus fall under Section 141, allowing proceedings against them.