A beneficial later amendment eliminating imprisonment applies to pending cases involving earlier offences.

On 23 October 1991, a Food Inspector inspected a grocery shop and obtained samples of biscuits.

The Public Analyst found the biscuits compliant with prescribed standards but misbranded because the labels omitted the month and year of manufacture or pre-packing, contrary to Rule 32(f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.

The petitioner, proprietor of a wholesale agency from whom the shopkeeper had purchased the biscuits, was convicted under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to six months’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.

The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence; the petitioner challenged that decision in revision.

Whether the trial and appellate courts’ appreciation of the evidence was perverse so as to warrant interference in revision

Whether the petitioner’s substantive sentence could be replaced with a fine in light of the later legislation and the passage of time since the offence

Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 prescribed imprisonment and a fine for the relevant offence.

Section 97 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 repealed the 1954 Act while preserving liabilities, penalties and proceedings already incurred or initiated; the judgment also considered the later penalty provision in Section 51 of the 2006 Act.

Relying on T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe, (1983) 1 SCC 177, and Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 17 SCC 448, the Court applied the principle that a subsequent, more beneficial reduction in punishment may be extended to an accused in an earlier pending case.

The High Court reviewed the evidence for the limited purpose of assessing the claim of perversity and found no patent error in the lower courts’ appreciation of the prosecution evidence.

It therefore declined to disturb the conviction.

On sentence, it considered that the offence dated from 1991, that there was no material showing further offending by the petitioner, and that the later statutory regime had removed the substantive sentence relied on by the Court.

Applying the beneficial-construction principle in T. Barai and Nemi Chand, it concluded that replacing imprisonment with a reduced fine would serve the ends of justice.

The substantive sentence was set aside, and the fine was reduced to Rs. 500, payable to the trial court within two months; in default, the petitioner was directed to undergo three days’ simple imprisonment.