JUDGMENT :

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The short question for our consideration is the applicability of the relevant rule for imposition of penalty; whether it is the rule that existed when the violation occurred during the license period of 2009-10 or the rule that was substituted in 2011 when proceedings for penalty were initiated. As the substituted rule reduced the quantum of penalty, the appellant insists on its application but the statutory authorities as well as the Division Bench of the High Court rejected his case and imposed higher penalty under the old rule.

2.1 For the reasons to follow, we have accepted the contention of the appellant and, in allowing the appeal, determined that the purpose of the amendment is to achieve a proper balance between crime and punishment or the offence and penalty. In light of this, and recognizing that classifying offenders into before or after the amendment for imposing higher and lower penalties does not serve any public interest, we have directed that the substituted Rule alone will apply to pending proceedings.

3. Facts: The appellant is a sub-licensee under the M.P. Excise Act, 1915¹ [Hereinafter referred to as “th