Supreme Court Reduces Sentence for Misbranded Food: A.K. Sarkar & Co. vs. State of West Bengal (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 7, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 186

Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Can a person be given the benefit of a new law that provides for a lesser punishment for an offense committed under a previous law? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning misbranded food items. The Court considered whether the appellants, who were convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, could benefit from the reduced penalties under the subsequent Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. This judgment highlights the principle of beneficial construction, which allows for the application of a more lenient law to an accused, even if the offense was committed before the new law came into force.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

Case Background

On December 6, 2000, a food inspector inspected the shop/godown of M/S A.K. Sarkar & Co. at 71, Biplabi Rash Behari Basu Road, Calcutta. The inspector took samples of sugar boiled confectionery that were kept for sale and human consumption. After purchasing 1500 grams of the confectionery, which was contained in three packets of 500 grams each, the inspector sent the samples for laboratory examination. The lab report showed that the food articles were not adulterated. However, the packets did not display the required particulars, such as the complete address of the manufacturer and the date of manufacturing, violating Rule 32(c) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Consequently, a complaint was filed against the appellants under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The relevant provisions are:

• Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: This section deals with penalties for contravention of the Act or Rules.
• Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: This section prohibits the manufacture, sale, storage, or distribution of any misbranded food.
• Rule 32(c) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955: These rules specify the mandatory labeling requirements for food packages, including the name and complete address of the manufacturer, importer, vendor, or packer, and the month and year of manufacture or prepacking.
  
  The relevant part of Rule 32 as per the Gazette Notification reads as under:
  
  “32. Package of food to carry a label: —
  
  (a) …………
  
  (b) …………
  
  (c) The name and complete address of the manufacturer or importer or vendor or packer.
  
  (d) ………..
  
  (e) ………..
  
  (f) The month and year in which the commodity is manufactured or prepacked.”
• Section 2(ix)(k) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954: This section defines misbranded food as food not labeled in accordance with the requirements of the Act or the Rules made thereunder.
• Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India: This article protects individuals from being convicted of an offense except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offense, and from being 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 offense.
  
  “(1) 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.”
• Section 52 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: This section provides a penalty for misbranded food, which may extend to three lakh rupees, without any provision for imprisonment.
  
  “52. Penalty for misbranded food. (1) Any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is misbranded, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to three lakh rupees. (2) The Adjudicating Officer may issue a direction to the person found guilty of an offence under this section, for taking corrective action to rectify the mistake or such article of food shall be destroyed.”

Arguments

The appellants argued that they were not the manufacturers of the food items, but rather Bose Confectionary, Calcutta, was. However, they could not provide valid proof of this claim. They also contended that they were charged under Rule 32 (c) and (f) of the Rules, which were not related to misbranding.

The prosecution argued that the packets of confectionery taken from the appellants’ shop were misbranded as they were not labeled according to the requirements of the Act and Rules. The prosecution contended that the appellants were liable for the violation under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the appellant can be granted the benefit of the new legislation and be awarded a lesser punishment as is presently prescribed under the new law?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts regarding the offense but converted the sentence of appellant no.2 from three months of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- to a fine of Rs.50,000/-. The sentence of appellant no.1, which was a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, was upheld.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the principle of beneficial construction and the fact that the new law provided a lesser punishment for the same offense. The Court also considered the age of appellant no.2 and the long lapse of time since the commission of the offense.

The Court reasoned that while Article 20(1) of the Constitution prohibits a greater penalty than what was applicable at the time of the offense, it does not prohibit awarding a lesser punishment. The Court relied on the principle of beneficial construction, as established in T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe (1983) 1 SCC 177*, which allows for the application of a more lenient law to an accused. The Court also took into consideration the fact that the new law, the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, does not provide for imprisonment for misbranded food, but only a fine.

“It is only retroactive criminal legislation that is prohibited under Article 20(1). The prohibition contained in Article 20(1) is that 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 prohibits nor shall he 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.”

“But insofar as the Central Amendment Act reduces the punishment for an offence punishable under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, there is no reason why the accused should not have the benefit of such reduced punishment. The rule of beneficial construction requires that even ex post facto law of such a type should be applied to mitigate the rigour of the law.”

“The above provision has been interpretated several times by this Court and broadly the mandate here is that a person cannot be punished for an offence which was not an offence at the time it was committed, nor can he be subjected to a sentence which is greater than the sentence which was applicable at the relevant point of time. All the same, the above provision does not prohibit this Court, to award a lesser punishment in a befitting case, when this Court is of the opinion that a lesser punishment may be awarded since the new law on the penal provision provides a lesser punishment i.e. lesser than what was actually applicable at the relevant time.”

Key Takeaways

• The principle of beneficial construction allows for the application of a more lenient law to an accused, even if the offense was committed before the new law came into force.
• A person cannot be subjected to a penalty greater than what was applicable at the time of the offense, but can be given the benefit of a lesser punishment under a new law.
• The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, does not provide for imprisonment for misbranded food, but only a fine.
• Courts may consider the age of the accused and the lapse of time since the commission of the offense while deciding on the sentence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the fine amount of Rs. 50,000/- for appellant no.2 and Rs. 2,000/- for appellant no.1 should be deposited with the concerned Court within a period of three weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the principle of beneficial construction allows for the application of a new law with a lesser punishment to an offense committed under a previous law. This case reinforces the principle that an accused can be given the benefit of a more lenient law, even if the offense was committed before the new law came into force.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in M/S A.K. Sarkar & Co. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. provides clarity on the application of beneficial construction in cases involving changes in penal provisions. The Court reduced the sentence of appellant no.2, applying the principle that a person can benefit from a new law that prescribes a lesser punishment for an offense, even if that offense was committed under a previous law. This judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the current legal landscape and the principle of leniency while deciding on sentences.