Facts in Brief

Expressing doubt over the correctness of the judgment in Assistant Commissioner, Assessment-II, Bangalore v. Velliappa Textiles Ltd., (2003) 11 SCC 405, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court referred the issue — Whether a company or a corporate body could be prosecuted for offences for which the sentence of imprisonment is a mandatory punishment — to a Constitution Bench of the Court.

The aspect of interpretation revolved around Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), which provided for a mandatory punishment of fine and imprisonment for certain offences. Thus, the dispute arose as to whether, in the case of corporate bodies, which could not be imprisoned, the sentence could be imposed at all.

Arguments

Calling for a literal interpretation, the Appellants submitted that since the punishment provided was both “imprisonment and fine,” the Court could not impose only a “fine.” Both fine and imprisonment must be imposed. But since imprisoning a juristic entity was impossible, the law under consideration could not be made functional by initiating prosecution under it. Therefore, it was argued that corporates could not be punished under the said Section at all.

Judgment

By a 3:2 majority, the Supreme Court overruled the case of Velliappa Textiles Ltd., declaring that there was no immunity to companies from prosecution merely because the prosecution was in respect of offences for which the punishment prescribed was mandatory imprisonment along with a fine. It was pointed out, with reference to Section 56 of FERA, that though punishment by way of imprisonment and fine was mandatory, prosecution would not be crippled merely because imprisonment of corporates was impossible.

For the Common Man

This case clearly sets down the position that no one is above the law. A juristic entity would not be exempted from prosecution merely on the ground that the penal sanction on it would be in the nature of fine and imprisonment together. Thus, invoking the doctrine of impossibility, and bringing out an interpretation that made the Section workable and applicable, the Court declared that though a corporation cannot be imprisoned, it can surely be fined, and prosecution was permissible.