Mandatory imprisonment and fine cannot be rewritten as fine alone for corporate offenders under clear statutory language.

A mandatory punishment provision requiring imprisonment and fine cannot be reinterpreted as imprisonment or fine to accommodate a corporate offender, because that would amount to judicial legislation. The Court held that where statutory language is clear, purposive interpretation and related maxims cannot justify departing from the plain text, and punishment cannot be selectively applied by replacing the imprisonment component with a fine. It therefore affirmed the majority view in Velliappa Textiles Ltd. and confirmed that any change to the scheme must come from Parliament, not judicial rewriting.

---

---

Issues: Whether the majority view in Velliappa Textiles Ltd. required reconsideration, and whether provisions mandating imprisonment and fine could be interpreted to apply to a corporate offender by substituting fine for imprisonment.

Analysis: Parliament had promptly amended the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 after the decision in Velliappa, indicating acceptance of the legal difficulty identified there. The Court held that its function is to interpret law and not to rewrite it. Reading "imprisonment and fine" as "imprisonment or fine" would amount to judicial legislation and would produce a varying construction depending on whether the offender is a natural person or a company, which is impermissible. The Court also held that the relevant maxims and the principle of purposive interpretation cannot justify departing from the plain statutory command where the language is clear and the prescribed punishment cannot be selectively applied.

Conclusion: The majority view in Velliappa Textiles Ltd. was held to be correct. A corporate offender cannot be judicially spared the mandatory imprisonment component by rewriting the statute, and any remedy lies with the legislature.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against reconsideration of the earlier view, and the legal position recognising the limitation on punishment of corporate offenders under such provisions was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes mandatory imprisonment and fine, the Court cannot substitute imprisonment with fine for a corporate offender by interpretative ingenuity, because such a correction would amount to rewriting the legislation rather than construing it.

---