9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Immunity of a company from prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. Applicability of mandatory imprisonment and fine to a company. 3. Interpretation of Section 16 and Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 4. Legislative intent and historical context of the Act's amendments. 5. Judicial precedents and principles of statutory interpretation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Immunity of a Company from Prosecution: The court examined whether a company, as defined in Section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, enjoys immunity from prosecution for offences under the Act. The court concluded that a company does not enjoy such immunity. It was determined that the term "person" in Section 16(1) includes a company, as per the definition provided in the General Clauses Act. The court held that a company can be prosecuted and punished under the Act, even if the mandatory punishment includes imprisonment, which cannot be imposed on a company. 2. Applicability of Mandatory Imprisonment and Fine: The court addressed whether a company can be punished with both imprisonment and fine, as mandated by Section 16(1) of the Act. It was noted that the mandatory punishment prescribed includes imprisonment and a fine of not less than one thousand rupees. The court recognized that while imprisonment cannot be imposed on a company, the company can still be prosecuted and fined. The court rejected the argument that a company cannot be prosecuted if imprisonment is a mandatory part of the sentence. 3. Interpretation of Section 16 and Section 17: The court provided a detailed interpretation of Sections 16 and 17 of the Act. Section 16(1) prescribes the punishment for offences, including imprisonment and fine. Section 17(1) states that when an offence is committed by a company, every person responsible for the conduct of the business, as well as the company itself, shall be deemed guilty and liable to be punished. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was to make the punishment more stringent and to include companies within the purview of the penal provisions. 4. Legislative Intent and Historical Context: The court examined the legislative history and intent behind the amendments to Section 16. The amendments aimed to make the penal provisions more deterrent and to address the increasing tendencies of food adulteration. The court referred to the objects and reasons for the amendment, which highlighted the need for more stringent punishments. The court concluded that the legislative intent was not to exempt companies from prosecution but to ensure that they are held accountable for offences under the Act. 5. Judicial Precedents and Principles of Statutory Interpretation: The court referred to several judicial precedents and principles of statutory interpretation. It cited Heydon's case, which established the rule of construction that statutes should be interpreted to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy intended by the legislature. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in various cases, emphasizing the need to give effect to the legislative intent and to ensure that all parts of the statute are effective and operative. Conclusion: The court held that a company does not enjoy immunity from prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. If a company is found guilty of an offence, it can be punished with a fine, even if imprisonment cannot be imposed. The court's interpretation aimed to advance the legislative intent and to ensure that companies are held accountable for food adulteration offences. The reference was answered accordingly, and the criminal appeal was to be posted before the Division Bench for disposal in light of the court's findings.
|
