https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192662 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. en-us Fri, 14 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jun 2017 18:04:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192662 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192662