A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court addressed whether the appellants, convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 for misbranding food, could benefit from the more lenient penalties under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The appellants were found guilty of not labeling sugar confectionery packets in accordance with Rule 32(c) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, invoking Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which permits lesser punishments if subsequent laws prescribe more lenient penalties. The case underscores the application of beneficial amendments and principles of statutory interpretation in criminal jurisprudence.

Keywords: Prevention of Food Adulteration, Food Safety Standards, Misbranding, Beneficial Legislation, Article 20(1).

B) CASE DETAILS

• Judgment Cause Title: M/s A.K. Sarkar & Co. & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
• Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1447 of 2024
• Judgment Date: 07 March 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
• Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
• Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 356 : 2024 INSC 186
• Legal Provisions Involved:
  • Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: Sections 16(1)(a)(i), 7, and 2(ix)(k).
  • Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: Rule 32(c) and (f).
  • Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: Section 52.
  • Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
• Judgments Overruled: None.
• Case is Related to Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Food Safety Regulations, and Constitutional Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appellants, a confectionery firm and its partners, were accused of misbranding sugar confectionery products in 2000. These products lacked requisite labeling, violating Rule 32 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Following a conviction in the Trial Court, upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Courts, the appellants sought relief under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which repealed the 1954 Act and imposed lighter penalties.

The appellants contended that the 2006 Act’s provisions, as interpreted in prior cases, could mitigate their sentence. The appeal called for a balance between the procedural mandate of the repealed law and the liberal provisions of the 2006 Act.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On December 6, 2000, a food inspector conducted an inspection of the appellants’ premises in Kolkata.
2. Samples of sugar-boiled confectioneries were taken and tested. While the products were not adulterated, the packaging lacked:
   • The manufacturer’s complete address.
   • The manufacturing date.
3. A complaint was filed under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
4. The Trial Court convicted the appellants, sentencing one partner to imprisonment and fines.
5. The High Court reduced the imprisonment sentence for one appellant and upheld fines.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Can the penalties under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which are more lenient, be retrospectively applied to mitigate sentences?
2. Does Article 20(1) of the Constitution permit lesser punishments prescribed by subsequent legislation?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The appellants argued that Rule 32(c) and (f) did not cover their specific actions and sought dismissal of the charges.
2. They contended that the misbranded food articles were manufactured by another party, Bose Confectionery, and not by them.
3. They invoked Article 20(1), arguing for the application of the 2006 Act, which only prescribed fines and no imprisonment for similar violations.
4. The appellants referenced precedents, including T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe (1983) and Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2018), to substantiate the retroactive application of beneficial laws.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The respondents maintained that the appellants failed to provide evidence proving Bose Confectionery’s involvement.
2. They argued that the violations clearly fell under Rule 32(c) and (f) of the 1955 Rules, making the appellants liable for misbranding.
3. They opposed the retrospective application of the 2006 Act, emphasizing adherence to the law prevailing at the time of the offence.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellants’ guilt, observing that the confectionery packets were misbranded as defined under Section 2(ix)(k) of the 1954 Act.
2. Article 20(1) does not preclude applying lesser punishments under subsequent legislation if beneficial to the accused.
3. The 2006 Act’s Section 52, prescribing fines for misbranding, applied retrospectively to mitigate sentences.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. Beneficial amendments in criminal law should be liberally construed to extend relief to accused parties.
2. Judicial discretion in sentencing must consider the time elapsed and proportionality of punishment.

c. Guidelines

The Court provided the following guidance:

• Courts may impose penalties under newer laws if these laws are more favorable to the accused.
• Article 20(1) prohibits harsher penalties but permits retrospective application of lenient punishments.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the progressive application of criminal law and the doctrine of beneficial construction. It highlights judicial discretion in sentencing while aligning with constitutional mandates. The Court’s approach aligns with principles of equity and proportionality.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe (1983) 1 SCC 177
2. Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 17 SCC 448
3. Trilok Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 763

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
2. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
3. Constitution of India, Article 20(1)