As per case facts, a petition was filed seeking to quash a complaint by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board against a partner of M/s Shree Nathan Bricks Co. The ... firm was accused of operating a brick kiln in violation of pollution control norms, including using prohibited fuel and not adopting zig-zag technology. The petitioner claimed to be a 'sleeping partner' with a minor financial stake, residing abroad and having no role in daily operations, supported by the partnership deed and co-partners' affidavits. The Respondent argued that all partners are liable under Section 40 of the Air Act. The question arose whether a partner, having no active role in the management or day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm, can nevertheless be fastened with criminal vicarious liability. Finally, the Court held that vicarious criminal liability requires proof that the person was 'directly in charge of, and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business'. Since the petitioner was a sleeping partner with no operational control, the proceedings against him were quashed.