Beneficial amendment to food adulteration law applied to pending cases, replacing imprisonment with fine for sub-standard and misbranded food.

The amendment introducing Section 16A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which provides only a fine for sub-standard or misbranded food, was treated as a beneficial provision and applied to pending matters. On that basis, the earlier custodial sentence was held liable to modification because a law reducing punishment may operate retrospectively where proceedings are still pending. The conviction was not disturbed; only the sentence was altered. In the connected misbranding matter, the same principle applied on identical facts, and imprisonment was likewise replaced by fine.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of the amendment introducing Section 16A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which permits only a fine in cases of sub-standard or misbranded food, applies to pending cases and warrants alteration of the sentence.

Analysis: The appeal involved a conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for sub-standardization or misbranding, and the conviction itself was not pressed. The controlling question was only on sentence. The amendment was treated as beneficial to the accused and, applying the principle that a law reducing punishment may operate retrospectively to pending matters, the earlier custodial sentence was held to be liable to modification. The same approach was applied to the connected matter involving misbranding, which stood on identical facts.

Conclusion: The benefit of the amended provision was held applicable, and the sentence of imprisonment was set aside and substituted by fine. The appeals were allowed in part to that extent.

---