Foundational averment needed to prosecute firm partners under the Income-tax Act; prolonged delay also offended speedy trial rights.

Criminal prosecution for Income-tax Act offences against firm partners requires a clear foundational averment that they were in charge of and responsible for the firm's business at the time of the alleged offence. Where the complaint and section 200 CrPC statement contain no such specific allegation, the prosecution is vulnerable to quashing under section 482 CrPC. The text also notes that prolonged pendency without evidence after framing of charges may make the proceedings oppressive and inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21. On these facts, the criminal case and all proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings for offences under the Income-tax Act could be quashed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for want of a specific averment that the partner-petitioners were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business at the time of the alleged offence, and for delay causing denial of speedy trial.

Analysis: Liability for offences committed by a firm or company under the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act depends on a proper foundational averment that the persons sought to be prosecuted were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence. The complaint and the statement recorded under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, contained no such specific averment against the petitioners. The proceedings had also remained pending for an inordinate period without evidence being recorded after framing of charges, making the prosecution oppressive and contrary to the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The petition was allowed and the criminal case and all proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.

---