TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1968 (2) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e purpose of making tea which he served to his customers. The Food Inspector purchased a sample of milk from him which was found to be adulterated by the Public Analyst. He was prosecuted under Section 7(I) read with Section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (Act 37 of 1954), hereinafter referred to as the 'Principal Act' Since the offence alleged to have been committed by him was a second offence, he rendered himself liable to imprisonment for a term extending to two years and with fine but which punishment could not be less than one year together with fine of not less than Rs 2,000 as laid down in Section 16(i)(ii) of the Principal Act. 3. The offence charged had been committed on 28-9-1964 and the applicant w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
................. (d) ............................ (e) ........................... (f) ........................... (g) .... .......... ....... (i) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; (ii) for a second offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine, Provided that in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the Court such imprisonment shall not he less than one year and such fine shall not be less than two thousand rupees" 5. Section 16(1), as substituted by the amending Act of 1965, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., renders himself liable to imprisonment extending to six years and with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees. At the same time, the Legislature has given a wide discretion to the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than sis months or a fine of less than Rs 1,000 if the Court for adequate and special reasons considers it proper to do so. The amending Act has abolished the distinction between the first, second or third offence in the matter of punishment Undei the principal Act, on the other hand a second offence in breach of the provisions of the Act rendered a person liable to a sentence of imprisonment of not less than one year and of fine of not less than two thousand rupees. It was contended by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the learned author goes on to say; "A repeal will generally, therefore, divest all inchoate rights which have arisen under the repealed statute, and destroy all accrued causes of action based thereon. As a result, such a repeal, without a saving clause, will destroy any proceeding, whether not yet begun, or whether pending at the time of the enactment of the repealing Act, and not already prosecuted to a final judgment so as to create a vested right (at page 599)". 9. The above rule of construction is based on the principle that until the proceedings have reached final judgment in the Court, of last resort, that Court, when it comes to announce its decision must conform to the law then existing. Dealing with the question of cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e favourable to personal liberty". 12. It seems to us clear that the true rule of construction of a penal statute is that where the legislature evinces its intention to modify the law, in favour of the accused, so as to reduce the rigour of the law in the light of past experience and changed social conditions, so long as prosecution of the accused has not concluded by a judgment of conviction, the proceedings against him are regarded as inchoate and the law applicable to him would be the law as amended by the legislature. The Court trying an accused person has to take into consideration the law as it exists on the date of the judgment. It seems reasonable that an accused person cannot render himself liable to a higher punishment under a ....