ISHARDAS versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 312 · Decided: 31-01-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

312 
ISHARDAS 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
Jal!uary 31, 1972 
(J. M. SHELAT AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.) 
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, s. 4( !)-Conviction under Pre.,n· 
tion of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-Accused below 20 years-MlnimMm 
sentence of i1nprisonment and fine prescribed as punishment for oQence--
lf Probation of Offenders Act applicable. 
B 
The appellant, who was less thon 20 years was convicted for llll 
offence under s. 7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, c 
and waa ordered to furnish a bond under s. 4 of the Probation of Offenders 
Act, 1958. The High Court revised the sentence, because s. 16 of Ille 
Pl'evention of Food Adulteration Act prescribed a ntinimum sentence of 
imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 1000. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : Seel ion 4 (I) of the Probation of Offenders Act eontains the 
non-obstante clause notwithstanding anything contained In any other law 
[) 
for the time being in force, and hence the section would have overridlna 
effect and shall prevail if Its other conditions are fuJJllled; especially when 
the Probation of Offenders Act waa enacted in 1958 subeequent to the 
enactment In 1954 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. [317 A-C; 
318 D-EJ 
According to s. 18 of the Probation of Offenders Act, that Act aball 
not affect a. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption A~ which also pres· E 
cribes '" minimum sentence of imprisonment. The fact . that only Olle 
offence for which a minimum sentence of Imprisonment is prescribed, bu 
been specified shows that in the case of other such offencee, the prov!· 
sions of the Probation of Offenders Act can be invoked [317H; 3.18 A-CJ 
&suming there is some ambiguity, the principle to he applied in 
construing a penal statute is that such doubt should be resolved in favour 
of the person who would be liable to the penalty. [318 DJ 
F 
Adulteration of food i~ a 1 men~ce to public health and th~ Prevention 
of Food Adulteration Act has been enacted to eradicate the evil. 'Jbero. 
fore, courts should not li1htly resort to the provisions of the Probation 
of Offenders Act in the case of pers00$ abov1 21 years of age; but the 
Act makes a distinction between offenders below 21 years and tbOM 
nbove th«t a1c. 
As re1ards person undrr 21 years, the policy of the law 
is that such a person, even in the cue of conviction under the Pre\>eat!on 
G 
of Food Adultoratlon Act, ahould not be deprived of the advantap of 
the Probation of Offenders Act which la a beneJlclent meuure aad 
reflects and Incorporates the modern approach and latest trend in penoloaY. 
f318 G·H; 319 A-CJ 
As the object of the Probation of Offenders Act ls to avoid imprison-
ment of n person covered by its provisions, that object C311110t he set at 
naught by 1mposihg a sentence of fine which would entail Imprisonment 
H 
in case of default. [319 DJ 
Rattan Lal v. Statt of Punjab [1964J 7 S.C.R. 676 and· Ramil Mlssir 
v. State of Bihar, [1962J Supp. 2 S.C.R. 745, referred to. 
A 
B 
ISHAR DAS v. PUNJAB (Khanna, J.) 
313: 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crigiinal Appeal No 
64 of 1969. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
December 10, 1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 
Criminal Revision No. 1200 of 1967. 
R. L. Kohli, for the appellant. 
V. C. Mahajan and R.· N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Khamm, J. Ishar Das appellant was 
convicted 
by 
the· 
C 
judicial magistrate 1st class Patiala for an offence under section 
7 (I l of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 
(Act 
N(• 37 of l9'54)·read with section 16(l)(a)(i) of that Act and 
wu; onlered to furnish bond under section 4 of the Probation of 
Offenders Act. 
Bedi, J. of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 
du:ing the course of the inspection of the Court of trial magistrate, 
D 
toi:•k the view that an improper order had been made in the above 
case by the magistrate. 
The High Court thereupon of its own 
motion directed that a notice be issued to the appellant. 
The 
case was thereafter posted before Bedi, J. 
The learned judge 
referred to the fact that a minimum sentence ·of imprisonment for 
a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 had been pres-
E 
cribed by section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. 
It was also observed that offences under the Prevention of Food' 
Adulteration Act were against the public and called for deterrent 
punishment. 
Order was consequently made t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.