https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283096 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. en-us Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Sep 2019 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283096 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283096