Foundational averment for partner liability under income-tax prosecution was missing, so the complaint and proceedings were quashed.

A complaint for offences under Sections 276C and 277 could not be sustained against firm partners because it failed to plead the foundational requirement under Section 278B that they were, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business. The absence of that essential averment meant the deemed criminal liability provision was not properly invoked, and the prosecution was treated as an abuse of process. The complaint and all proceedings arising from it were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained against partners of a firm in the absence of an ment that they were in charge of, and responsible to, the firm for the conduct of its business at the time of the alleged offence.

Analysis: Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 creates deemed criminal liability for offences committed by a company or firm only where the persons sought to be prosecuted were, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business. The complaint did not contain such an essential allegation against the petitioners. In the absence of that foundational averment, the prosecution could not be maintained against them, and the criminal proceedings were treated as an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The complaint and all proceedings arising from it were quashed.

---