FACTS- On 06.12.2000, a food inspector while inspecting the shop/godown of the appellants at 71, Biplabi Rash Behari Basu Road, Calcutta took samples of some sugar boiled confectionaries, which were kept for sale and for human consumption. After payment, the food inspector purchased 1500 grams of sugar boiled confectionery contained in three packets of 500 grams each, and as per due process sent the samples for examination in a laboratory. The public analysis/Lab report shows that the food articles were not adulterated, but it said that the packets did not show the prescribed particulars such as complete address of the manufacturer and the date of manufacturing. Thus, there was violation of Rule 32(c) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short ‘Rules’). In view of these findings, the inspector filed a complaint before the Trial Court under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act.

The present appeal arises out of a proceeding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short ‘the Act’) where the present appellant no.1, its partners appellant no.2 and Amit Kumar Sarkar, were charged under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act and were convicted by the Trial court.

Appellant no.2 and Amit Kumar Sarkar were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, whereas appellant no.1 was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-.

The plea of the appellants before the Trial Court was that they had not manufactured the food articles, instead Bose Confectionary, Calcutta had manufactured these items. Trial Court and the Appellate Court (as well as the Revisional Court) did not accept this contention raised by the appellants.

ISSUE- As Per New Law Whether Article 20 Doesn't Prohibit Court From Imposing Lesser Punishment?

Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the appellants that the entire case of the prosecution is liable to be dismissed for the simple reason that the appellants were charged under Rule 32 (c) and (f) of the Rules but these provisions were not related to misbranding and were regarding something else.

Article 20(1), which incorporates the principle that criminal laws cannot be given retrospective operation, states that a person cannot be punished or subjected to a higher penalty on the basis of a law which was not in force at the time of the offence. Therefore, giving a benefit of the new Act, though it was not in force when the offence was committed, the Supreme Court gave benefit to the accused/appellants by converting the sentence of imprisonment to a just fine.

Thus, The Supreme Court observed that Article 20(1) of the Constitution doesn't restrain the Courts from imposing a lesser punishment on the basis of a new law which came into force after the date of commission of the offence.