Partner liability in firm prosecutions requires specific averments showing charge and responsibility for business conduct

Section 278B of the Income-tax Act fastens criminal liability on a partner only if the complaint specifically shows that, at the time of the offence, the person was in charge of and responsible for the firm's conduct of business. Mere repetition of statutory language is not enough; the complaint must disclose the individual partner's role and give a fair opportunity to defend. Where a partner is described as a sleeping partner, with no specific overt acts or material showing responsibility for the business, the complaint is insufficient. Corresponding specific allegations are also required for the invoked IPC offences, and the proceedings were liable to be quashed against the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint against a partner of a firm could be quashed for want of specific averments that she was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the business at the time of the alleged offences under the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 fastens criminal liability on a person connected with a firm only when the complaint discloses that, at the time of the offence, that person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business. Mere reproduction of the statutory words is insufficient; the complaint must indicate the role of the particular partner so as to afford a proper opportunity of defence. The petitioner was described as a sleeping partner, there were no specific overt acts attributed to her, and the materials did not show her responsibility for the firm's business. The complaint also lacked corresponding specific allegations for the invoked Indian Penal Code offences.

Conclusion: The proceedings were liable to be quashed as against the petitioner.

---