Supreme Court clarifies the inapplicability of Probation of Offenders Act in cases under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act: Nagarajan & Anr. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (2025)

Date of the Judgment: May 15, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 703

Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Manmohan, J.

Can a person convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PoFA Act) be granted the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in two criminal appeals arising from different High Courts but involving the same legal issue. The Court clarified the interplay between the PoFA Act, the Probation of Offenders Act, and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), specifically focusing on the applicability of Section 20AA of the PoFA Act. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan.

Case Background:

In the lead appeal, Nagarajan and Selvaraj were accused of selling adulterated curd. On June 26, 2001, a sample of curd was taken from their shop and sent for analysis, which revealed that it did not meet the standards prescribed under the PoFA Act. The Trial Court convicted them under Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) r/w Section 2(ia)(a)(m) of the PoFA Act, sentencing them to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3000 each.

In the connected appeal, Naresh Chandra was found selling spices, chilli powder, flour, cooking oil, salt, and other items on March 20, 1985. The Food Inspector suspected adulteration and presented Form VI to Naresh Chandra, who refused to accept or sign it. Naresh Chandra also allegedly intimidated the Food Inspector and prevented him from taking a sample. The Trial Court convicted Naresh Chandra under Section 7/10(1) r/w Section 16(1)(c)(d) of the PoFA Act, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings:

Nagarajan and Selvaraj’s conviction by the Trial Court was upheld by the Appellate Court on December 18, 2009. Subsequently, they filed a criminal revision before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which was dismissed on June 4, 2019.

Naresh Chandra’s conviction and sentence were upheld by the Appellate Court on November 16, 1988. He then challenged the appellate judgment before the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed the revision on July 4, 2019.

Legal Framework:

Section 20AA of the PoFA Act, introduced in 1976, explicitly states:

“Nothing contained in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958) or section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act unless that person is under eighteen years of age.”

This provision effectively bars the application of the Probation of Offenders Act to individuals convicted under the PoFA Act, except for those under 18 years of age.

The PoFA Act was later repealed by the FSS Act. Section 97 of the FSS Act addresses the repeal and savings, with a proviso that states:

“Provided that such repeal shall not affect: — (i) the previous operations of the enactment and Orders under repeal or anything duly done or suffered there under; or (ii) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any of the enactment or Orders under repeal; or (iii) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offences committed against the enactment and Orders under repeal; or (iv) any investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment, and any such investigation, legal proceedings or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if this Act had not been passed.”

This saving clause ensures that any penalties, investigations, or legal proceedings initiated under the PoFA Act remain valid even after its repeal.

The appellants’ arguments are primarily based on Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which provides protection against ex post facto laws:

“No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.”

Additionally, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, outlines the effect of repealing any enactment, ensuring that the repeal does not affect previous operations, rights, or penalties incurred under the repealed enactment.

Arguments:

Appellants’ Arguments:

• ✓ Section 20AA of the PoFA Act denies first-time offenders the benefit of probation, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
• ✓ Section 20AA of the PoFA Act violates Article 21 of the Constitution by impacting individual liberty without due consideration.
• ✓ Section 20AA of the PoFA Act contradicts the reformative justice approach in Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
• ✓ The FSS Act, which repealed the PoFA Act, lacks a provision equivalent to Section 20AA, indicating a shift towards a reformatory framework.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Tamil Nadu):

• ✓ Section 20AA of the PoFA Act expressly excludes the applicability of the Probation Act and Section 360 of the Cr. PC.
• ✓ The legislative intent is clear that food adulteration is a crime against public health, and perpetrators must face consequences.
• ✓ The inclusion of Section 20AA in the PoFA Act through amendment highlights the growing concern over food adulteration and the inadequacy of existing laws.

Submissions Categorized by Main Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the benefit of the provisions of the Probation Act can be granted to the respective appellants?
2. Should the answer to the above question be in the negative, can the reduced sentence that the FSS Act envisages be imposed on the appellants instead?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Authorities:

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• ✓ Ishar Das v. State of Punjab, (1973) 2 SCC 65: Discussed the applicability of the Probation Act to offenses under the PoFA Act before the introduction of Section 20AA.
• ✓ Jai Narain v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi, (1972) 2 SCC 637: Upheld the view in Ishar Das but noted that anti-social conduct does not merit the application of the Probation Act.
• ✓ Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange, (1974) 1 SCC 167: Affirmed that offenses under the PoFA Act are economic offenses and not easily susceptible to probation.
• ✓ Prem Ballab v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1977) 1 SCC 173: Observed the legislative trend discouraging the applicability of probation in food adulteration cases after the amendment introducing Section 20AA.
• ✓ T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe, (1983) 1 SCC 177: Addressed whether a convict is entitled to a reduced sentence if a new enactment provides a lesser punishment.
• ✓ Babu Ram v. State of Haryana, 1987 Supp SCC 12: Held that Section 20AA of the PoFA Act overrides the provisions of the Probation Act.
• ✓ Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 17 SCC 448: Modified the sentence based on the decision in T. Barai.
• ✓ A.K. Sarkar & Co. v. State of W.B., (2024) 10 SCC 727: Held that the FSS Act provides a maximum penalty of Rs 3,00,000 for misbranded food without imprisonment.
• ✓ Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 40: Discussed the retrospective application of laws that mollify the rigor of criminal law.
• ✓ Basheer v. State of Kerala, (2004) 3 SCC 609: Addressed the constitutional validity of amendments in the context of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
• ✓ Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas, (1974) 4 SCC 222: Delineated the purpose and object of the Probation Act.
• ✓ C. Mohammed v. State of Kerala, (2006) 13 SCC 290: Converted imprisonment to a fine due to discrepancies in adulteration reports.

Authorities Considered by the Court:

Judgment:

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• ✓ Ishar Das v. State of Punjab [CITATION]*: The court acknowledged this case but noted that it predates Section 20AA.
• ✓ T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe [CITATION]*: The court found this case not entirely applicable due to differences in the legal context.
• ✓ Babu Ram v. State of Haryana [CITATION]*: The court relied on this case to support the view that Section 20AA overrides the Probation Act.
• ✓ A.K. Sarkar & Co. v. State of W.B. [CITATION]*: The court followed this decision in the interest of justice, equity, propriety, and judicial comity, despite reservations.
• ✓ C. Mohammed v. State of Kerala [CITATION]*: The court followed the approach in this case, converting imprisonment to a fine due to discrepancies in analysis reports.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?:

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the explicit provisions of Section 20AA of the PoFA Act and the ‘repeal and savings’ clause in the FSS Act. The Court emphasized the legislative intent to protect public health and ensure strict penalties for food adulteration. Despite arguments for reformative justice and constitutional rights, the Court prioritized adherence to statutory provisions and precedents.

Fact:Law: Create ratio table for showing the sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court to show the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide. Fact is defined as “percentage of the consideration of the factual aspects of the case” and Law is defined as “percentage of legal considerations”.

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal considerations, with factual aspects playing a secondary role.

Logical Reasoning:

Issue 1: Applicability of the Probation Act

Does Section 20AA of the PoFA Act apply?

↓

Yes: Section 20AA expressly excludes the Probation Act.

↓

Probation Act cannot be applied.

Issue 2: Imposition of Reduced Sentence under the FSS Act

Does the FSS Act’s ‘repeal and savings’ clause protect the penalty?

↓

Yes: The clause expressly saves penalties under the PoFA Act.

↓

Reduced sentence under the FSS Act cannot be imposed.

The court’s reasoning followed a clear, logical path, adhering strictly to the statutory provisions and relevant precedents.

The Supreme Court concluded that the benefit of the Probation Act is inapplicable to offenses committed under the PoFA Act between 1976 and 2006, and the benefit of sentence mollification cannot be given when a ‘repeal and savings’ clause expressly saves a penalty. However, considering the facts and circumstances, the court partly allowed the appeals by converting the sentences of imprisonment to fines.

Key quotes from the judgment:

“Nothing contained in the Probation of offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958) or section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act unless that person is under eighteen years of age.”

“Provided that such repeal shall not affect: — (i) the previous operations of the enactment and Orders under repeal or anything duly done or suffered there under; or (ii) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any of the enactment or Orders under repeal; or (iii) any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offences committed against the enactment and Orders under repeal; or (iv) any investigation or remedy in respect of any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment, and any such investigation, legal proceedings or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if this Act had not been passed.”

“Every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.”

Key Takeaways:

• ✓ The Probation of Offenders Act cannot be applied to offenses under the PoFA Act committed between 1976 and 2006 due to Section 20AA.
• ✓ The ‘repeal and savings’ clause in the FSS Act protects penalties incurred under the PoFA Act.
• ✓ Courts may consider converting imprisonment to fines based on discrepancies in analysis reports.

Directions:

The Supreme Court directed that the sentences of imprisonment for 6 (six) months imposed on Nagarajan and Selvaraj stand converted to a fine of Rs. 30,000/- each, while in the case of Naresh Chandra, the sentence of imprisonment is converted to that of a fine of Rs. 20,000/-.

All three appellants were given time until the end of June 2025 to pay the fine, failing which the order shall stand revoked, and they shall be taken into custody for serving the prison term of six months, minus set-off for any period they were in custody earlier.

Development of Law:

The ratio decidendi of the case is that Section 20AA of the PoFA Act explicitly bars the application of the Probation of Offenders Act to individuals convicted under the PoFA Act for offenses committed between 1976 and 2006. Additionally, the ‘repeal and savings’ clause in the FSS Act protects penalties incurred under the repealed PoFA Act, preventing the imposition of reduced sentences under the new Act. This clarifies the legal position regarding the interplay between these statutes and reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and legislative intent.

Conclusion:

In summary, the Supreme Court clarified that the Probation of Offenders Act is inapplicable to offenses under the PoFA Act committed between 1976 and 2006, and the ‘repeal and savings’ clause in the FSS Act protects penalties under the PoFA Act. While the court upheld the convictions, it converted the sentences of imprisonment to fines, providing partial relief to the appellants.