Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India – Conviction under Sec.16(1)(a)(I) read with Sec.7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act repealed by Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Benefit of lesser punishment under new law

On 6.12.2000, the packets containing food articles of sugar boiled confectionery purchased by the Food Inspector did not contain the prescribed particulars of complete address of the manufacturer and the date of manufacturing.   Complaint was filed for violation of Rule 32© and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.   The appellants were convicted for offence under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act.

HELD Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India mandates that a person cannot be punished for an offence which was not an offence at the time when it was committed, nor can he be subjected to a sentence which is greater than the sentence which was applicable at the relevant time.  However, that does not prohibit this  Court to award lesser punishment in a befitting case when the new law on the penal provision provides lesser punishment. The prohibition contained in Article 20 is on subjecting a person to a higher punishment applicable at the time of crime.   There is no prohibition to impose lesser punishment now applicable for the same crime.    Section 52 of new Food Safety and Standards Act, 1006, provides for maximum penalty of Rs.3 lakhs for misbranded food but no imprisonment.  When an amendment is beneficial to to the accused it can be applied even to cases pending in Courts where such a provision did not exist at the time of commission of the offence.

M/s. A.K.Sarkar & Co. And another  Vs. State of West Bengal and others in Criminal Appeal No.  ….of 2024 (Special Civil Petition (Criminal) No.6095 of 2018