LexNAGARAJAN & ANR. versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 471 : 2025 INSC 703 Nagarajan & Anr. v. The State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Appeal No. 1390 of 2025) 15 May 2025 [Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan , JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be granted to the appellants; if the answer to the aforesaid issue is in the negative, can the reduced sentence that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Act envisages be imposed on the appellants instead. Headnotes† Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – s.20AA – Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – s.97 – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Offences under the PoFA Act took place in 2001 and 1985 – Appellants were convicted and sentenced – Mollification of sentence sought by the appellants: Held: s.20AA, PoFA Act r/w s.97, FSS Act makes it clear that the benefit under the Probation Act is inapplicable to an offence committed under the PoFA Act, if the offence has been committed between introduction of s.20AA in 1976 and its repeal in 2006 by the FSS Act – However, in the facts and circumstances and the discrepancy in the analysis reports of the seized curd, the lead appeal is partly allowed following the decision in C. Mohammed – The connected appeal is also partly allowed in the interest of justice, equity, propriety and judicial comity on the basis of the dictum in A.K. Sarkar & Co. – Sentences imposed converted to fine. [Paras 47, 48] Interpretation of Statutes – Rule of literal construction – Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – s.97 – Repeal and savings – Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 – s.20AA – Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: Held: A ‘repeals and savings’ clause in any statute is not mere surplusage that the Courts may ignore in the interpretation of the * Author 472 [2025] 6 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports law – When a ‘repeal and savings’ clause specifically protects a penalty provided for in the old enactment, the intention of the legislature is clear – This Court cannot and should not provide a benefit to the accused that is not permitted in law – Mollification must only be provided in cases where a provision in relation to ‘repeal and savings’ is either not present or where the ‘repeal and savings’ clause envisages such a possibility – This Court cannot offend the express provisions present in any legislative instrument merely to provide a benefit to an offender, not envisaged under the law – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s.6, 26 – Constitution of India – Article 20. [Paras 41, 43] Case Law Cited T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe [1983] 1 SCR 905 : (1983) 1 SCC 177; Paramjit Singh v. Municipal Corpn. (1982) 3 SCC 317; Santosh Kumar v. Municipal Corpn. (2000) 9 SCC 151 – held inapplicable. Babu Ram v. State of Haryana (1987) Supp. SCC 12; Basheer v. State of Kerala [2004] 2 SCR 224 : (2004) 3 SCC 609; C. Mohammed v. State of Kerala (2006) 13 SCC 290 – relied on. A.K. Sarkar & Co. v. State of W.B. [2024] 3 SCR 356 : (2024) 10 SCC 727; Ishar Das v. State of Punjab [1972] 3 SCR 312 : (1973) 2 SCC 65; Jai Narain v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi [1973] 1 SCR 923 : (1972) 2 SCC 637; Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange [1974] 2 SCR 154 : (1974) 1 SCC 167; Prem Ballab v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1977] 1 SCR 592 : (1977) 1 SCC 173; Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 17 SCC 448; Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab [1964] 7 SCR 676 : 1964 SCC OnLine SC 40; Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas [1974] 3 SCR 133 : (1974) 4 SCC 222 – referred to. List of Acts Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954; Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; Probation of Offenders Act, 1958; Constitution of India; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; General Clauses Act, 1897. List of Keywords Food adulteration; Mollification of sentence; Benefit of probation; Repeals and savings clause; Release of offenders on probation; Samples of curd; Spice; Chilli powder, Flour; Cooking oil; Salt; Food Inspector; Rule of beneficial construction; Rule of statutory [2025] 6 S.C.R. 473 Nagarajan & Anr. v. The State of Tamil Nadu interpretation; Rule of literal construction; Food adulteration; Crime against public health; Safety of consumers; Safety standards of food; Preventing adulterated food; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966; Discrepancy in the analysis reports; Seized curd; Interest of justice; Equity; Propriety; Judicial comity. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.