Misbranded food and beneficial later penalty: conviction upheld, but custodial sentence replaced by fine for one appellant.

Food articles were held misbranded because the labels omitted particulars required by the applicable Rule 32, including the manufacturer or packer's full address and the month and year of manufacture or prepacking, so the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was sustained. The Court also applied the beneficial later regime under the Food Safety and Standards Act, holding that a subsequent lesser penalty may be invoked in pending proceedings; on that basis, the custodial sentence of one appellant was replaced by a fine while the other appellant's fine remained unchanged. The finding of guilt was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the food articles were misbranded and the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 could be sustained notwithstanding the challenge based on Rule 32(c) and Rule 32(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955; (ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the later and more lenient punishment under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 in place of the sentence imposed under the earlier law.

Issue (i): Whether the food articles were misbranded and the conviction under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 could be sustained notwithstanding the challenge based on Rule 32(c) and Rule 32(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

Analysis: The applicable form of Rule 32 at the time of sampling required the package to carry the name and complete address of the manufacturer, importer, vendor or packer, and the month and year of manufacture or prepacking. The samples did not disclose those particulars. The articles were therefore not labelled in accordance with the statutory requirements and fell within the definition of misbranded food. The concurrent findings of the courts below on guilt were found to call for no interference.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and the challenge to applicability of Rule 32(c) and Rule 32(f) failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the later and more lenient punishment under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 in place of the sentence imposed under the earlier law.

Analysis: Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India prohibits retrospective enhancement of punishment, but does not bar the application of a subsequently enacted lesser penalty where the later law is beneficial to the accused. The Court applied the principle of beneficial construction and relied on the later statutory regime under Section 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which prescribes only a monetary penalty for misbranded food. In view of the age of the matter and the circumstances of the case, the custodial sentence of the second appellant was considered fit to be substituted by a fine.

Conclusion: The sentence of the second appellant was reduced to a fine, while the fine imposed on the first appellant was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of sentence reduction for one appellant, while the finding of guilt was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A later and more lenient penal provision may be applied to pending proceedings as beneficial legislation, but the conviction under the earlier law remains undisturbed where the ingredients of the offence are established.

---