Specific averments are required to sustain vicarious criminal liability of firm partners in tax deduction prosecutions.

Criminal liability for failure to deduct and remit tax at source cannot be fastened on partners of a firm on the basis of a bare assertion that they were in charge of and responsible for the business. The complaint must contain specific foundational averments showing each accused's role, including facts indicating how a partner was treated as the principal officer or otherwise personally liable. Absent such particulars, vicarious prosecution is not sustainable on the pleadings as framed, and the prosecution is liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal prosecutions for failure to deduct and remit tax at source could be sustained against partners of a firm when the complaint contained only a general assertion that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, without specific averments showing their individual role or liability.

Analysis: The liability under the provisions relating to deduction at source had to be read with the definition of the person responsible for paying and the provision dealing with offences by companies and persons in charge of their business. On that footing, mere description of the accused as partners and a bald repetition that they were in charge of and responsible for the firm's business was not enough. The complaint did not allege facts showing that any partner had been treated as the principal officer, nor did it set out the role played by each accused so as to attract vicarious liability. In the absence of such foundational averments, the prosecution could not be allowed to proceed merely in the hope that evidence might later establish responsibility.

Conclusion: The prosecutions against the petitioners were not maintainable on the pleadings as framed and were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: For fastening vicarious criminal liability on partners or other persons connected with a firm, the complaint must contain specific averments showing how each accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business; a bare, general allegation is insufficient to sustain the prosecution.

---