https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180042 An amendment to food adulteration rules introducing a limited tolerance for mineral oil in hard boiled sugar confectionary did not retrospectively apply to a pending criminal appeal, because the later standard neither decriminalised the conduct nor expressly or by necessary implication displaced the law in force on the date of the offence. The conviction was therefore upheld, as the amended conditions had not been established on the existing record. The statutory minimum sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment was also maintained, since long pendency alone did not justify reducing a lawful minimum punishment in a food adulteration case requiring strict consumer protection enforcement. en-us Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:34:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180042 An amendment to food adulteration rules introducing a limited tolerance for mineral oil in hard boiled sugar confectionary did not retrospectively apply to a pending criminal appeal, because the later standard neither decriminalised the conduct nor expressly or by necessary implication displaced the law in force on the date of the offence. The conviction was therefore upheld, as the amended conditions had not been established on the existing record. The statutory minimum sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment was also maintained, since long pendency alone did not justify reducing a lawful minimum punishment in a food adulteration case requiring strict consumer protection enforcement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180042