IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                CRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1048 OF 2002   

 Ballarpur Industries Ltd. ..   Appellant(s)

                    Versus

State Rep. By Dy. Superintendent of Police, Chennai

..   Respondent(s)    

                                                      O R D E R

This appeal by special leave arises out of a judgment dated 12th February 2002,

rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CR.R. Case No. 516 of 1999.  By

the impugned judgment,  a Learned Single Judge of the High Court has set aside the

order passed by the trial Court discharging the appellant for the offence under Section

420 of the Indian   Penal Code on the ground that since the offence under the    said

Section is punishable by a minimum mandatory sentence of imprisonment which cannot

be enforced against the Company, it cannot be charged with the offence.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

We are of the view that the point in issue, viz. whether a Company, being a

juristic  person,  can be prosecuted for an office for which mandatory punishment

prescribed is  

..2/-

C.A. No.1048/2002..contd...

: 2 :

imprisonment and fine, is no more res integra. In Standard Chartered Bank & Ors.

Vs. Directorate of Enforcement & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 530, by a majority of 3:2, this

Court  has  opined  that  there  is  no  immunity  to  the  Companies  from prosecution

merely because the prosecution is in respect of offences for which the punishment

prescribed is  mandatory imprisonment  and fine.   It  has been held that  though a

Company cannot be sentenced to imprisonment, it can nevertheless, be prosecuted

and  the  Court   can impose  punishment  of  fine  instead.   In  the  light  of  the  said

decision, no fault can be found with  the view taken by the High Court.  Accordingly,

the appeal is dismissed.

At this juncture, Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf

of the appellant,  submits that  when application for discharge was filed before the

Principal  Special  Judge,  CBI,  Chennai   on  20th  May,  1998,  the  decision  of  the

Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dated 9th May,

2000  was  not  available.   He,  therefore,  prays that  since  the  order passed  by  the

CEGAT has material bearing on the case against the appellant, the appellant may be

permitted  to  move  a  fresh  application   before  the   Special  Judge  for discharge.

Without commenting  

..3/-

C.A. No. 1048/2002...contd..

: 3

on  the  merits  of  the  submissions  made  by  the  learned  counsel,   we  permit  the

appellant to take recourse to any appropriate proceeding as may be available to them

in  accordance  with  law.   We  may  also  note  that  we  are  not  oblivious  of  the

observations made by this Court in order dated September 11, 2001, passed in Civil

Appeal Nos. 3942-3944 of 2001.    

                                       ...................J.            [ D.K. JAIN ]  

                                       ...................J.                                     [ R.M. LODHA ]                         

            NEW DELHI, MARCH 04, 2009.