As per case facts, the case involves a reference to a larger Bench to reconsider the correctness of the majority view in Assistant Commissioner, Assessment \026II, Bangalore & Ors. vs. ... Velliappa Textiles Ltd. & Anr. Velliappa dealt with prosecutions under the Income Tax Act, 1961, where offenses were punishable with mandatory imprisonment and fine. The majority in Velliappa held that an artificial person, such as a company, could not be physically punished with imprisonment, and thus, sections mandating imprisonment could not apply to such entities. The question arose whether courts could interpret statutory provisions mandating both imprisonment and fine as applicable to artificial persons by effectively converting the imprisonment component to zero or by reading 'and' as 'or', thereby allowing only a fine to be imposed, or if legislative action was the sole solution for such a perceived drafting error. Finally, the Supreme Court upheld the Velliappa majority view, affirming that the judicial function is strictly to interpret the law as written, not to rewrite or rectify legislative omissions. The Court emphasized that when a statute mandates both imprisonment and fine, there is no judicial discretion to impose only a fine on corporate offenders. It was noted that Parliament itself acknowledged this issue and subsequently amended relevant Acts, such as the Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act, to specifically allow for fines in cases involving corporate offenders, thereby validating the original interpretation that legislative intervention was necessary. The Court rejected arguments for "judicial heroics" or flexible interpretations that vary with the offender's nature, maintaining that any interpretation must be uniformly applicable.