https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110465 The commentary addresses whether a company can be prosecuted and convicted for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 where section 56 contemplates mandatory imprisonment, and whether the earlier view on that question should be reconsidered by a Constitution Bench. It explains that excluding companies from prosecution merely because imprisonment cannot be imposed on a juristic person may defeat legislative intent and create reverse discrimination. Applying purposive construction, it suggests the provision may be read down so that conviction of a company remains possible while recognising the limits on sentencing a corporate entity. It also notes the distinction between conviction and sentence and the role of section 69 in post-conviction consequences. en-us Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Apr 2020 16:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110465 The commentary addresses whether a company can be prosecuted and convicted for contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 where section 56 contemplates mandatory imprisonment, and whether the earlier view on that question should be reconsidered by a Constitution Bench. It explains that excluding companies from prosecution merely because imprisonment cannot be imposed on a juristic person may defeat legislative intent and create reverse discrimination. Applying purposive construction, it suggests the provision may be read down so that conviction of a company remains possible while recognising the limits on sentencing a corporate entity. It also notes the distinction between conviction and sentence and the role of section 69 in post-conviction consequences. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 16 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110465