Vicarious criminal liability under income-tax law depends on specific averments that partners were in charge of the firm's business.

A criminal complaint under the Income-tax Act cannot fasten vicarious liability on partners unless it contains specific averments that they were in charge of, and responsible for, the firm's business at the time of the alleged offence. On that basis, the complaint was quashed against three partners because the necessary statutory allegations were absent. The proceedings were, however, permitted to continue against the fourth partner, since he had signed and verified the return and was alleged to have been in control of the firm's affairs, giving the complaint a sufficient basis to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint under the Income-tax Act could be quashed against the partners who were not alleged to be in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the firm's business, and whether the complaint could proceed against the partner who had signed and verified the return.

Analysis: The complaint did not contain the necessary allegation that three of the partners were in charge of, and responsible to, the firm for its business at the time of the alleged offence. In view of the statutory deeming provision governing prosecution of firms and those connected with their management, criminal liability could not be fastened on them in the absence of such averments. By contrast, the fourth petitioner had admittedly signed and verified the return and was alleged to have been in control of the firm's affairs, so the complaint disclosed a basis for proceeding against him.

Conclusion: The complaint and consequential proceedings were quashed as against the three partners, but the proceedings were allowed to continue against the partner who signed and verified the return.

---