2024 (4) TMI 954 - SC - Indian Laws

Food Safety and Standards - Inadequate labeling - Misbranding - Adulteration of foods or not - sugar boiled confectionaries - packets did not show the prescribed particulars such as complete address of the manufacturer and the date of manufacturing - violation of Rule 32(c) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Appellants would argue that the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be dismissed for the simple reason that the Appellants were charged Under Rule 32(c) and (f) of the Rules but these provisions were not related to misbranding and were regarding something else. HELD THAT - The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was repealed by the introduction of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 where Section 52 provides a maximum penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- for misbranded food. There is no provision for imprisonment. Whether the Appellant can be granted the benefit of the new legislation and be awarded a lesser punishment as is presently prescribed under the new law? This Court in T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe 1982 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT , had held that when an amendment is beneficial to the Accused it can be applied even to cases pending in Courts where such a provision did not exist at the time of the commission of offence. The present Appellant No. 2, at this stage, is about 60 years of age and the crime itself is of the year 2000, and twenty- four years have elapsed since the commission of the crime. Vide Order dated 06.08.2018, this Court had granted exemption from surrendering to Appellant No. 2. Considering all aspects, more particularly the nature of offence, though the findings of the Courts below regarding the offence is upheld, but the sentence of Appellant No. 2 from three months of simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- is convertred to a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The sentence of Appellant No. 1 which is for a fine of Rs. 2000/- is upheld. The appeal is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issues related to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, specifically focusing on the conviction and sentencing of the Appellants under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act. The key issues include misbranding of food products, violation of labeling rules, applicability of new legislation, and the imposition of appropriate penalties.

Conviction and Sentencing:
The Appellants, including partners and an individual, were charged under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Trial Court convicted them, with varying sentences imposed on each. The appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge, leading to the matter being taken up by the High Court of Calcutta in Revision proceedings. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of one of the Appellants from six months to three months of simple imprisonment.

Misbranding and Labeling Violation:
The case stemmed from an incident where a food inspector took samples of sugar boiled confectionaries from the shop/godown of the Appellants for inspection. The samples were found to be not adulterated but lacked the prescribed particulars on the packets, such as the complete address of the manufacturer and the date of manufacturing. This violation led to a complaint being filed under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act. The Appellants contended that they did not manufacture the food articles, but failed to provide valid proof of their claim, leading to their conviction for misbranding.

Applicability of New Legislation:
The judgment discusses the applicability of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which repealed the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The new Act provides for a maximum penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 for misbranded food without any provision for imprisonment. Citing previous cases, the Court deliberated on whether the Appellants could benefit from the new legislation and be awarded a lesser punishment. The Court referred to precedents where reduced punishments were granted under beneficial amendments to the law.

Imposition of Penalties:
Considering the age of one of the Appellants and the time elapsed since the commission of the crime, the Court modified the sentence of the Appellant from three months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 to a fine of Rs. 50,000. The sentence of another Appellant, which was a fine of Rs. 2,000, was upheld. The Court directed the amounts to be deposited with the concerned Court within three weeks. The appeal was partly allowed, reflecting a balance between upholding the findings of the lower Courts and adjusting the penalties in light of the circumstances.