Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1985 (2) TMI 306

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the proceedings instituted on its basis in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Kairana Muzaffarnagar. 2. M/s. Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries and Hairish Kumar, Works Manager of M/s. Oswal Vanaspati and Allied Industries have filed Criminal Misc Application No. 6826 of 1982 to quash the complaint filed by the Food Inspector Nagar Palika Shamli under Section 7/16 of the Act and the proceedings instituted on its basis in the Court of the Spatial Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Kairana district Muzaffarnagar. 3. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants before the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of the two applications th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mander Lal (supra). He, therefore, referred the under mentioned questions to a Full Bench: (i) Whether in view of the substantive sentence provided under Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, while the Company is a juristic person cannot suffer substantive sentence, Section 17(i)(b) is rendered nullified and Company cannot be prosecuted under the Food Adulteration Act? (ii) Whether under the rules of interpretation of statute the express provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, providing for prosecution of the Company, can be reconciled with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which provides for imposition of fine besides substantive sentence, by imposing fine, w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it cannot be punished. If, however, both sentence of imprisonment and fine is prescribed for natural persons and juristic persons jointly then though the sentence of imprisonment cannot be awarded to a Company the sentence of fine can be imposed on it. Thus it cannot be held that in such a case the entire sentence prescribed cannot be awarded to a Company as part of sentence, namely, that of fine can be awarded to it. Legal sentence is the sentence prescribed by law. A sentence which is in excess of the sentence prescribed is always illegal but a sentence which is less than the sentence prescribed may not in all cases be illegal. It would depend on whether the entire sentence prescribed can be awarded to the convicted person or only a part .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g down, the Full Bench held that if a punishment of imprisonment could not possibly be imposed upon a juristic person it was permissible to award the punishment of fine only. Such a situation does not arise in our case. In our case, only imprisonment was awardable. This decision seems to run counter to the view of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jugmander Lal 1966 AWR 386 where it was held that the expression 'shall be punishable with imprisonment and also with fine' means that the court is bound to pass sentence consisting both of Imprisonment and fine. With respect we are not in agreement with the observation made in the above mentioned case that the decision of the Full Bench of Delhi High Court in Municipal Corp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... special circumstances. The learned Judge has himself noticed that the sentence imposed is the statutory minimum. Having noticed that the statute prescribes a minimum sentence for the offence, the High Court has understandably reduced the sentence of imprisonment to less than the minimum permissible. The High Court was clearly in error in doing so. 8. In that case the accused was convicted by the Magistrate under Section 34-A of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and sentenced to two years R.I. which was the minimum sentence provided under that section but the High Court reduced it to the period already undergone. In that case the accused was also a natural person and not a juristic person. That case is also clearly distinguishable. 9. We .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates