2016 (3) TMI 1363 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Effect of amendment - amendment in the Act by the Central Amendment Act 34 of 1976 whereby Section 16A was added and under the said section, only a fine is leviable, Rigorous imprisonment is dispensed with - HELD THAT - In T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and Another 1982 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT , this Court held that since the amendment was beneficial to the accused persons, it can be applied even with respect to earlier cases as well which are pending in the Court. We have no doubt in mind that the aforesaid judgment squarely applies thereon - This appeal is, therefore, partly allowed and the sentence imposed upon the appellant is modified by imposing fine of ₹ 50,000/- which shall be deposited within two months with the trial court. On deposit of the aforesaid amount, the bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall be discharged.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
- Interpretation of Section 16A of the Act regarding the imposition of fines.
- Application of the principle of beneficial construction to reduce punishment retrospectively.
- Modification of the sentence imposed by the lower courts.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Supreme Court pertains to a criminal appeal arising from a conviction under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appellant had been sentenced to six months of Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 by the trial court, which was upheld by the Sessions Judge and the High Court in subsequent appeals. The appellant's counsel argued that a beneficial amendment in the Act allowed for the imposition of only a fine under Section 16A, referencing a previous Supreme Court judgment. The Court acknowledged the amendment's retroactive application to mitigate punishment, especially when it reduces penalties, as per the principle of beneficial construction.

In light of the above interpretation, the Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs. 50,000 to be paid within two months. Upon payment, the appellant's bail bonds were to be discharged. The judgment emphasized the importance of applying laws in a manner that benefits individuals and the community, aligning with the doctrine of mitigating the rigour of criminal law through retrospective amendments. The Court's decision showcased a balanced approach towards sentencing, considering both legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case.

Another similar case involving mis-branding was also presented, and the Court allowed the appeal in identical terms as the previous order, indicating a consistent application of the legal principles established in the main judgment. Overall, the judgment exemplified the Supreme Court's commitment to ensuring fair and just outcomes by interpreting laws in a manner that upholds justice while considering the rights and circumstances of the accused individuals.