Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – ss. 16(1)(a)(i) read with s.7, s. 2(ix)(k) – Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 – r. 32(c) and (f) – Misbranding food – Case registered against appellants that the packets of sugar boiled confectionary sold by them at their shop/godown did not show the prescribed particulars of complete address of the manufacturer and the date of manufacturing, thus violation of r. 32(c) and (f) – Conviction of appellant no.1, its partners-appellant no.2 and third accused u/s. 16(1)(a)(i) read with s. 7 – Appellant no.2 and third accused sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, whereas appellant no.1 directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- – District and Sessions Judge upheld the order as regards appellant no.1 and appellant no.2, however set aside the conviction of the third accused – High Court though upheld the concurrent findings of conviction but reduced the sentence of appellant no.2 from
6 months to 3 months simple imprisonment – Correctness: Held: Concurrent findings of the courts below, and no question of doubt as to the findings that the packets which were taken from shop/godown of the appellants were misbranded as defined u/s. 2(ix) (k), as they were not labelled in accordance with the requirements of the Act or the Rules made thereunder – As regards sentencing, the prohibition contained in Art. 20 is on subjecting a person to a higher punishment than which was applicable for that crime at the time of the commission of the crime but there is no prohibition, to impose a lesser punishment which is now applicable for the same crime – Appellant no. 2, is about 60 years of age and twenty-four years have elapsed since the commission of the crime – Though the findings of the courts below regarding the offence is upheld, however, the sentence of appellant no.2 converted from 3 months simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- to a fine of Rs.50,000/- – Sentence of appellant no.1 of Rs. 2000/- upheld – Constitution of India – Art. 20(1). [Paras 6,7, 10] Constitution of India – Art. 20(1) – Protection in respect of conviction for offences – Mandate of Art. 20(1): Held: 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 – Art. 20 (1) 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 than what was actually applicable at the relevant time – Prohibition contained in Art. 20 is on subjecting a person to a higher punishment than which was applicable for that crime at the time of the commission of the crime – There is no prohibition, for this Court to impose a lesser punishment which is now applicable for the same crime. [Para 8]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.