Nagarajan & Anr. vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

15 May 2025

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 1390 of 2025

Result

Partly allowed

Bench

Dipankar Datta, Manmohan

Citation

[2025] 6 S.C.R. 471 : 2025 INSC 703

Acts & Sections

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Constitution CrPC General Clauses Act, 1897

Issue for consideration

Whether the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be granted to the appellants; if the answer to the aforesaid issue is in the negative, can the reduced sentence that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Act envisages be imposed on the appellants instead.

Headnote

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – s.20AA – Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – s.97 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Offences under the PoFA Act took place in 2001 and 1985 – Appellants were convicted and sentenced – Mollification of sentence sought by the appellants:

Held: s.20AA, PoFA Act r/w s.97, FSS Act makes it clear that the benefit under the Probation Act is inapplicable to an offence committed under the PoFA Act, if the offence has been committed between introduction of s.20AA in 1976 and its repeal in 2006 by the FSS Act – However, in the facts and circumstances and the discrepancy in the analysis reports of the seized curd, the lead appeal is partly allowed following the decision in C. Mohammed – The connected appeal is also partly allowed in the interest of justice, equity, propriety and judicial comity on the basis of the dictum in A.K. Sarkar & Co. – Sentences imposed converted to fine. [Paras 47, 48]

Interpretation of Statutes – Rule of literal construction – Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – s.97 – Repeal and savings – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – s.20AA – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:

Held: A ‘repeals and savings’ clause in any statute is not mere surplusage that the Courts may ignore in the interpretation of the law – When a ‘repeal and savings’ clause specifically protects a penalty provided for in the old enactment, the intention of the legislature is clear – This Court cannot and should not provide a benefit to the accused that is not permitted in law – Mollification must only be provided in cases where a provision in relation to ‘repeal and savings’ is either not present or where the ‘repeal and savings’ clause envisages such a possibility – This Court cannot offend the express provisions present in any legislative instrument merely to provide a benefit to an offender, not envisaged under the law – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s.6, 26 – Constitution of India – Article 20. [Paras 41, 43]

Judgment Dipankar Datta, J. The Appeals 1. The two criminal appeals before us, arising from different incidents of crime, question the correctness of two decisions of the respective High Courts involving the same question of law. We, therefore, propose to decide the said two appeals by this common judgment and order. 2. In the lead appeal, the appellants - Nagarajan and Selvaraj - have assailed the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras1 Madras High Court dated 04th June, 2019 dismissing the criminal revision2 filed by them on the grounds assigned therein. 3. In the connecte

View Subscription Plans →