2024 (4) TMI 954

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent appeal arises out of a proceeding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') where the present Appellant No. 1, its partners Appellant No. 2 and Amit Kumar Sarkar, were charged Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act and were convicted by the Trial court. Appellant No. 2 and Amit Kumar Sarkar were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, whereas Appellant No. 1 was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 3. The appeal of the Appellants against the order of conviction and sentence by the Trial Court was dismissed by the District and Sessions Judge but the conviction of Amit Kumar Sarkar, the third Accused in the case,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellate Court (as well as the Revisional Court) did not accept this contention raised by the Appellants. The Appellant stood convicted of the offence Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act and Appellant No. 2 was sentenced to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment along with fine. While Appellant No. 1 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 6. Before this Court, learned Counsel for the Appellants would argue that the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be dismissed for the simple reason that the Appellants were charged Under Rule 32(c) and (f) of the Rules but these provisions were not related to misbranding and were regarding something else. 7. All the same, this contention is totally misconceived inasmuch....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. (2) .......... (3) .......... The above provision has been interpretated several times by this Court and broadly the mandate here is that a person cannot be punished for an offence which was not an offence at the time it was committed, nor can he be subjected to a sentence which is greater than the sentence which was applicable at the relevant point of time. All the same, the above provision does not prohibit this Court, to award a lesser punishment in a befitting case, when this Court is of the opinion that a lesser punishment may be awarded since the new law on the penal provision provides a lesser punishment i.e. lesser t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ied even to cases pending in Courts where such a provision did not exist at the time of the commission of offence. It was said as under: 22. It is only retroactive criminal legislation that is prohibited Under Article 20(1). The prohibition contained in Article 20(1) is that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence prohibits nor shall he be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. It is quite clear that insofar as the Central Amendment Act creates new offences or enhances punishment for a particular type of offence no person can be conv....