M/S A.K. SARKAR & CO. & ANR. versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 07-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 356 : 2024 INSC 186
M/s A.K. Sarkar & Co. & Anr. 
v. 
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1447 of 2024)
07 March 2024
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was repealed by 
the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 wherein s. 52 provides 
a maximum penalty of Rs.3,00,000/- for misbranded food. The 
issue arose whether the appellant can be granted the benefit of 
the new legislation-2006 Act and be awarded a lesser punishment 
as is presently prescribed under the new law, though it was not in 
force when the offence was committed.
Headnotes
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – ss. 16(1)(a)(i) read 
with s.7, s. 2(ix)(k) – Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 
– r. 32(c) and (f) – Misbranding food – Case registered against 
appellants that the packets of sugar boiled confectionary sold 
by them at their shop/godown did not show the prescribed 
particulars of complete address of the manufacturer and 
the date of manufacturing, thus violation of r. 32(c) and (f) – 
Conviction of appellant no.1, its partners-appellant no.2 and 
third accused u/s. 16(1)(a)(i) read with s. 7 – Appellant no.2 
and third accused sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment 
for 6 months along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, whereas 
appellant no.1 directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- – District and 
Sessions Judge upheld the order as regards appellant no.1 and 
appellant no.2, however set aside the conviction of the third 
accused – High Court though upheld the concurrent findings 
of conviction but reduced the sentence of appellant no.2 from 
6 months to 3 months simple imprisonment – Correctness:
Held: Concurrent findings of the courts below, and no question of 
doubt as to the findings that the packets which were taken from shop/
godown of the appellants were misbranded as defined u/s. 2(ix)
(k), as they were not labelled in accordance with the requirements 
of the Act or the Rules made thereunder – As regards sentencing, 
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
357
M/s A.K. Sarkar & Co. & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors
the prohibition contained in Art. 20 is on subjecting a person to a 
higher punishment than which was applicable for that crime at the 
time of the commission of the crime but there is no prohibition, to 
impose a lesser punishment which is now applicable for the same 
crime – Appellant no. 2, is about 60 years of age and twenty-four 
years have elapsed since the commission of the crime – Though 
the findings of the courts below regarding the offence is upheld, 
however, the sentence of appellant no.2 converted from 3 months 
simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/- to a fine of 
Rs.50,000/- – Sentence of appellant no.1 of Rs. 2000/- upheld – 
Constitution of India – Art. 20(1). [Paras 6,7, 10]
Constitution of India – Art. 20(1) – Protection in respect of 
conviction for offences – Mandate of Art. 20(1):
Held: 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 – Art. 20 (1) 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 
– Prohibition contained in Art. 20 is on subjecting a person to a 
higher punishment than which was applicable for that crime at the 
time of the commission of the crime – There is no prohibition, for 
this Court to impose a lesser punishment which is now applicable 
for the same crime. [Para 8]
Case Law Cited
T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe, [1983] 1 SCR 905 : (1983) 1 
SCC 177; Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 17 
SCC 448; Trilok Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 
(2020) 10 SCC 763 – referred to.
List of Acts
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; Food Safety and 
Standards Act, 2006
List of Keywords
Prevention of Food Adulteration; Food Safety and Standards; 
Misbranded food; Benefit of the new legislation; Lesser punishment; 
Higher punishment.
358
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1447 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2018 of the High Court 
at Calcutta in CRR No

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