Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

No Greater Penalty than Applicable at Offense Time: Supreme Court Applies Lesser Penalty of New Legislation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Legal Point: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India modified the sentence in a case of misbranding of food articles, emphasizing the application of a lesser punishment under the newer Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, as opposed to the older Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Facts and Issues: The case involved M/S A.K. Sarkar & Co. & Anr., convicted for selling misbranded sugar boiled confectioneries without proper labeling as mandated under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the accompanying Rules of 1955. The key legal issue was whether the appellants could benefit from the lesser penalty provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which replaced the 1954 Act.

Court Assessment: The Court meticulously examined the legal arguments, noting that the appellants failed to prove their claim of non-manufacture. Despite the concurrent findings of three lower courts confirming the violation of Rule 32(c) and (f) regarding labeling requirements, the Court observed the significant time lapse since the commission of the offence and the change in legislation. Referencing Article 20(1) of the Constitution, the bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale, asserted that while no person can be subjected to a penalty greater than that applicable at the time of the offence, they can benefit from a lesser penalty under new legislation.

Decision: The Court, drawing from precedents like T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and subsequent cases, applied the beneficial amendment retrospectively. Consequently, the sentence for appellant no.2 was modified from three months’ imprisonment and a fine to solely a fine of Rs.50,000. The fine of Rs.2,000 for appellant no.1 was upheld.

M/S A.K. Sarkar & Co. & Anr. Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Date of Decision: March 7, 2024.

Similar News