Company prosecution under food adulteration law upheld; fine may still be imposed despite inability to impose imprisonment.

A company, as a juristic person, can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act even where the penal provision prescribes imprisonment and fine jointly, because the term "person" includes a company and the Act contemplates prosecution of the company itself. Although imprisonment cannot be applied to a company, that does not invalidate the prosecution. Sections 16 and 17(1)(b) are reconcilable so that, in the case of a company, the enforceable part of the punishment, namely fine, may still be imposed in accordance with the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a company, being a juristic person, can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act where Section 16 prescribes imprisonment and fine. (ii) Whether Section 17(1)(b) can be harmonised with Section 16 so that, in the case of a company, fine alone may be imposed though imprisonment cannot.

Issue (i): Whether a company, being a juristic person, can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act where Section 16 prescribes imprisonment and fine.

Analysis: The expression "person" in the Act includes a company, and Section 17 contemplates prosecution of the company itself. Although a company cannot suffer imprisonment, that does not make the prosecution illegal where the statute prescribes imprisonment and fine jointly for offences applicable to natural and juristic persons. In such a situation, the part of the punishment that can lawfully be applied to the company may still be imposed.

Conclusion: A company can be prosecuted under the Act, and the impossibility of imprisonment does not nullify the prosecution.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 17(1)(b) can be harmonised with Section 16 so that, in the case of a company, fine alone may be imposed though imprisonment cannot.

Analysis: The two provisions are capable of reconciliation. The mandatory nature of the punishment under Section 16 applies fully to natural persons, but where the offender is a company, imprisonment is inapplicable by legal necessity. The remaining component of the statutory punishment, namely fine, may still be awarded without violating the statutory scheme. Earlier authorities dealing with natural persons did not govern this position.

Conclusion: Fine alone may be imposed on a company under Section 16, and the provisions are reconcilable.

Final Conclusion: The questions referred were answered against the applicants and in support of the prosecution of a company under the Act, subject to imposition of the punishment that can lawfully be enforced against a juristic person.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a penal provision prescribes imprisonment and fine jointly, and the offender is a juristic person incapable of undergoing imprisonment, the statute may still operate to the extent of imposing the enforceable part of the punishment, namely fine, if the legislative scheme expressly contemplates prosecution of the company.

---