https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298513 An express saving clause in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 preserved prosecutions, liabilities and punishments arising under the repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, so the accused could not claim the benefit of the later, more lenient punishment regime for offences already committed. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was applied consistently with that saving intent. Separately, Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires notice and hearing before any revisional order prejudicial to an accused or other person, making a remand order against the company unsustainable without such opportunity. The company-linked prosecution framework was treated as dependent on proper arraignment of the company. en-us Thu, 05 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Nov 2021 11:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298513 An express saving clause in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 preserved prosecutions, liabilities and punishments arising under the repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, so the accused could not claim the benefit of the later, more lenient punishment regime for offences already committed. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was applied consistently with that saving intent. Separately, Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires notice and hearing before any revisional order prejudicial to an accused or other person, making a remand order against the company unsustainable without such opportunity. The company-linked prosecution framework was treated as dependent on proper arraignment of the company. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298513