2019 (10) TMI 1586 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenge to conviction Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - sentence of three months' imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- - HELD THAT - This Court relied on a decision in T. BARAI VERSUS HENRY AH HOE AND ANOTHER 1982 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was opined that since the amendment was beneficial to the Accused persons, it could be applied with respect to earlier cases as well which are pending in the Court observing It is quite clear that insofar as the Central Amendment Act creates new offences or enhances punishment for a particular type of offence no person can be convicted by such ex post facto law nor can the enhanced punishment prescribed by the amendment be applicable. But insofar as the Central Amendment Act reduces the punishment for an offence punishable Under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, there is no reason why the Accused should not have the benefit of such reduced punishment. The Rule of beneficial construction requires that even ex post facto law of such a type should be applied to mitigate the rigour of the law. The present appeal is allowed in part and the sentence imposed upon the Appellant is modified by imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000/- only, which shall be deposited within 30 days before the Trial Court. On deposit of the amount, the bail bonds of the Appellant shall stand discharged.

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant challenged his conviction under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which resulted in a three-month imprisonment term and a fine of Rs. 500. The case involved the purchase of three packets of rewari by the Food Inspector from the Appellant's shop, which were later found to be misbranded according to Section 2(ix)(k) of the Act.

2. The Food Inspector conducted the necessary formalities after purchasing the rewari packets, including sending the samples along with Form VI to the public analyst. The public analyst's opinion confirmed the misbranding of the product, leading to the legal proceedings against the Appellant.

3. The Appellant's appeals against the conviction were unsuccessful both at the appellate and revision stages in the High Court, prompting the matter to be brought before the Supreme Court.

4. During the Supreme Court hearing, the Appellant's Counsel argued that under Sections 51 and 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the maximum penalty for sub-standard food or branding was only a fine. Therefore, the Counsel requested the conviction to be set aside based on this ground.

5. The State's Counsel opposed the appeal, highlighting the concurrent findings of misbranding in compliance with the law applicable at the time of the incident.

6. The Supreme Court, in its decision, referred to a previous case and the principles of retroactive criminal legislation under Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that if an amendment reduces the punishment for an offense, the Accused should benefit from the reduced penalty, based on the Rule of beneficial construction.

7. Consequently, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the sentence by imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000 only, to be paid within 30 days before the Trial Court. Upon payment, the Appellant's bail bonds would be discharged, thereby concluding the legal proceedings in this matter.