Vicarious liability of partnership firms requires impleading the firm itself before prosecuting a partner alone.

Where alleged offences are attributed to a partnership firm, prosecution of an individual partner alone is not maintainable unless the firm is impleaded as an accused under the statutory scheme governing company-style vicarious liability. The complaint and evidence showed that the alleged wrongdoing arose from the firm's business, not the partner's personal capacity, so liability attached primarily to the firm and persons in charge of its business. Because the firm was not prosecuted, the proceeding against the partner alone was legally unsustainable and was quashed; the revisional application succeeded and the criminal proceeding was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a partner could be prosecuted for offences alleged to have been committed by a partnership firm without impleading the firm as an accused.

Analysis: The complaint and the evidence showed that the alleged offences arose from the business of the partnership concern and not from the partner in his individual capacity. The statutory provisions dealing with offences by companies, including partnership firms, fastened liability on the firm and on persons in charge of its business. In such a situation, prosecution of only one partner, without prosecuting the firm which was primarily liable, was held to be legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The prosecution could not proceed against the petitioner alone and was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The revisional application succeeded and the criminal proceeding was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged offence is attributed to a partnership firm, prosecution of an individual partner alone is not maintainable unless the firm itself is impleaded as an accused in accordance with the statutory scheme of vicarious liability.

---