The petitioner, Sanjeeva Shukla, a Director of Credforce Asia Limited, filed a criminal revision before the Calcutta High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of complaint proceedings under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. The petitioner argued that the complaint failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 141, as it contained no specific averment that he was 'in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company' at the relevant time, and merely described him as a Director without attributing any specific role in the transaction or cheque issuance. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents including Ashok Shewakramani v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2023) 8 SCC 473 and Siby Thomas v. Somany Ceramics Limited (2024) 1 SCC 348, reaffirmed that mere designation as a Director is insufficient to attract vicarious criminal liability under Section 141, and that specific, clear, and unambiguous averments regarding the Director's role are a mandatory prerequisite. On perusal of the complaint, the court found that the three Directors, including the petitioner, had been arraigned solely by virtue of their designation without any specific role being attributed to them in the alleged transaction.