Corporate liability under food adulteration law continues despite inability to impose imprisonment, with fine remaining executable.

A company was held not immune from prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act where the statute included companies within the class of persons capable of committing offences and the penal scheme was intended to apply to corporate offenders. The inability to impose corporal punishment on a company did not defeat liability, because the court could still give effect to the statutory command by imposing the executable part of the sentence. The provision was construed to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy, so a guilty company could be punished with fine even though imprisonment could not be carried out against it.

---

---

Issues: Whether a company is immune from prosecution for an offence under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, where the proviso to the relevant penal provision does not apply and the prescribed punishment includes mandatory imprisonment and fine; and if not immune, whether the company can nevertheless be punished with fine.

Analysis: The Act expressly brings a company within the definition of a person capable of committing an offence, and the scheme of the penal provisions shows that companies and firms were intended to fall within the reach of prosecution. The legislative history indicated that the amendment was meant to make punishment more deterrent, not to carve out an exemption for corporate offenders. The fact that a company cannot undergo corporal punishment does not defeat prosecution itself, because the court may give effect to the statutory command so far as it can be executed. Applying the accepted rule of construction that statutes must suppress the mischief and advance the remedy, the provisions were read to preserve liability while adapting the sentence to what is legally possible for an artificial person.

Conclusion: A company does not enjoy immunity from prosecution under the Act for such offences, and if found guilty it can be punished with fine.

Final Conclusion: The referred questions were answered by holding that corporate offenders remain prosecutable under the Act and that the sentencing provision does not bar imposition of a lawful executable punishment where imprisonment cannot be carried out against a company.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute clearly includes a company within the class of offenders, the inability to impose imprisonment on it does not create immunity from prosecution, and the court may impose the executable part of the punishment, such as fine, so as to give effect to legislative intent.

---