Retrospective vicarious criminal liability is barred where the accused neither signed nor verified the return, quashing the charge.

A person who neither signed nor verified an income-tax return could not be prosecuted under section 277 on the admitted facts, because the statement or verification necessary to attract that offence was absent. Section 278B, which creates vicarious liability for partners, could not be applied retrospectively to completed conduct predating its insertion, as that would create an ex post facto criminal liability. In the absence of a statutory basis to fasten criminal responsibility, the charges against the petitioner were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, who neither signed nor verified the income-tax return for the relevant assessment year, could be proceeded against for an offence under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, and whether section 278B could be invoked retrospectively to sustain the charge.

Analysis: The return related to an assessment year preceding the insertion of section 278B, and the provision creating liability for partners could not be applied to completed acts so as to create an ex post facto offence. On the admitted facts, the petitioner did not sign the return and did not make the statement or verification necessary to attract section 277. In the absence of a statutory basis for fastening criminal liability, the charge could not stand.

Conclusion: The petitioner could not be proceeded against under section 277 on the facts alleged, and section 278B could not be applied retrospectively. The charges against her were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A penal provision imposing vicarious liability cannot be applied retrospectively to create criminal liability for conduct completed before its insertion, and a person who did not sign or verify the false return cannot be charged under section 277 on those admitted facts.

---