Beneficial retrospective penal amendment may reduce sentence, while conviction under the earlier law is maintained.

A later penal amendment that merely reduces punishment may be applied to earlier or pending matters because Article 20(1) bars only retrospective laws creating offences or increasing punishment. On that principle, the conviction for misbranding under the law in force at the time of the offence was maintained, but the sentence was reassessed under the more lenient Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 regime. The reduced punishment was applied, and the sentence was modified in favour of the accused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of the later, more lenient penalty regime under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 could be applied to an earlier conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 so as to reduce the sentence.

Analysis: The Court relied on the principle that Article 20(1) prohibits only retroactive criminal legislation that creates new offences or enhances punishment. A subsequent amendment that merely reduces punishment is beneficial in nature and may be applied to pending or earlier matters to mitigate the rigour of the criminal law. On that basis, the conviction for misbranding under the law in force at the time of the offence was maintained, but the sentence was reassessed in light of the later, more lenient statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The reduced punishment under the later law was held applicable, and the sentence was modified accordingly in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A later penal amendment that is beneficial to the accused and only reduces punishment may be given retrospective effect to pending or earlier cases, as Article 20(1) bars only laws that create offences or increase punishment.

---