He draws the attention of this Court to Section 141(1) of the NI Act which states that if the offence is committed by a company then every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. He states that the explanation to Section 141 states that the company means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, thereafter, draws the attention of this Court to various judgments passed by the Apex Court to contend that the Apex Court has constantly held that to attract the case under Section 141 NI Act a specific role must have been played by the partner of the firm for him to be vicariously liable for the offence committed by the firm and if there is no averment to show as to whether the particular partner was in-charge to conduct the business of the company, the partner cannot be proceeded against for the offences committed by the company. He further contends that the Apex Court in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89, has categorically held that the averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 NI Act and has to be made in a complaint and without such an averment being made in the complaint the ingredients of Section 141 NI Act are not satisfied. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also draws the attention of this Court to paragraph No.16 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 579 , which reads as under:
