Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 842

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipankar Datta, Manmohan, JJ.
Nagarajan & Anr. – Appellant
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1390 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP(Crl.) No. 8401 of 2022]
With
Naresh Chandra @ Naresh Babu – Appellant
Vs.
State Of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2054 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP(Crl.) No. 2217 of 2022]
Decided On : 15-05-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.Nandakumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. R.Satish Kumar, Adv. Ms. V.Susheatha, Adv. Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Adv. Mr. Aakash Elango, Adv. Ms. Sandhya Dutt, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Benefit of Probation - There exists fundamental difference between reduction or mollification of a sentence and releasing an offender on probation - Benefit under Probation Act cannot be made applicable to an offence committed between 1976 (when Section 20AA was introduced) up to repeal of statute in 2006 by FSS Act.
(2) Mollification of Punishment must only be provided in cases where a provision in relation to ''repeal and savings'' is either not present or where ''repeal and savings'' clause envisages such a possibility.
(3) Interpretation of Statute - Rule of Literal Construction - Words of a statute should be read as it is and should be understood in their natural and ordinary sense.

Headnote:
(A) Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) r/w Sections 2(ia)(a)(m) and 20AA - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Section 4 - Seizure of sub-standard Curd - Conviction and sentence - Benefit of probation - There exists a fundamental difference between reduction or mollification of a sentence and releasing an offender on probation - Probationary process envisages that first time offenders who are capable of reformation can be provided a benefit such that they can continue to a be a part of society as capable and law-abiding citizens in future - Thrust of Penology in past few decades has been focused on reformation of an individual - However, Supreme Court cannot offend express provisions present in any legislative instrument merely to provide a benefit to an offender, not envisaged under law - Benefit under Probation Act cannot be made applicable to an offence committed between 1976 (when Section 20AA was introduced) up to repeal of statute in 2006 by FSS Act - In case in hand, Food Inspector took 12 samples of curd, mixed them in a vessel and out of that mixture took a sample and sent it for analysis - Food Inspector had not marked whether milk was buffalo milk or cow milk, and standard for buffalo milk was taken for the purpose of analysis - Discrepancy in report of Public Analyst should be interpreted to benefit of accused - Conviction and sentence modified. (Paras 41, 48 and 49)
(B) Criminal Law - Mollification of Punishment - When a 'repeal and savings' clause specifically protects a penalty provided for in old enactment, intention of Legislature is clear - Supreme Court, in its enthusiasm, cannot and should not provide a benefit to accused that is not permitted in law - Benefit of mollification of sentence cannot be given when a 'repeal and savings' clause in the repealing statute expressly saves a penalty incurred under the repealed statute - Mollification must only be provided in cases where a provision in relation to 'repeal and savings' is either not present or where 'repeal and savings' clause envisages such a possibility. (Para 43)
(C) Interpretation of Statute - Rule of Literal Construction - Words of a statute should be read as it is and should be understood in their natural and ordinary sense - Reference to rule of beneficial construction of a statute or any other rule of statutory interpretation may be resorted to only if literal rule fails to provide suitable guidance or results in absurdity. (Para 39)
Facts of the case:
Mollification of sentence is sought on behalf of two sets of appellants on the grounds that
(a) That Section 20AA of PoFA Act effectively denies benefit of probation for first-time offenders, thereby violating Article 14 of Constitution of India.
(b) That Section 20AA of PoFA Act violates Article 21 of Constitution as denial of probation impacts liberty of individuals without due consideration of their circumstances considering that Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is to rehabilitate offenders and reduce burden on the prison system.
Findings of Court:
All three appellants are given time till end of June, 2025 to pay the fine, failing which this order shall stand revoked and they shall expose themselves to be taken in custody for serving the prison term of six months, minus set-off for any period they were in custody earlier.
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Probation Act cannot be applied to offences under PoFA Act for periods between 1976 (enactment of Section 20AA) and 2006 (repeal by FSS Act) as per the judgment. (!) (!) - The repeal and savings clause of the FSS Act (Section 97) protects penalties incurred under the PoFA Act, preventing mollification of sentence where such penalties are saved. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court holds that mollification of sentence cannot be granted when a repeal and savings clause expressly saves a penalty incurred under the repealed statute. (!) (!) - Lead appeal partly allowed; conviction affirmed but sentence converted to fines due to discrepancies in analysis reports and discretionary considerations. (!) (!) (!) - In lead appeal, curd fat-content discrepancy between Public Analyst and Central Food Laboratory led to partial relief by converting imprisonment to fine. (!) (!) (!) - Connected appeal partly allowed; follow certain precedents (A.K. Sarkar & Co. v. State of W.B.) but not T. Barai reasoning, due to repeal/savings context. (!) (!) (!) - Final relief: imprisonment converted to fines for Nagarajan, Selvaraj, and Naresh Chandra, with deadlines to pay fines. (!) - The decision emphasizes literal construction of statutes, with limited resort to beneficial construction where repeal/savings clauses govern. (!) (!)

How to apply the Probation of Offenders Act to offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in light of Section 20AA and the repeal by the Food Safety and Standards Act?

What is the scope of mollification of punishment when a repeal and savings clause protects penalties under the repealed Act?

What are the circumstances under which the court can convert imprisonment to a fine (mollification) in cases involving PoFA Act offences after repeal?

JUDGMENT :

Dipankar Datta, J.

THE APPEALS

1. The two criminal appeals before us, arising from different incidents of crime, question the correctness of two decisions of the respective High Courts involving the same question of law. We, therefore, propose to decide the said two appeals by this common judgment and order.

2. In the lead appeal, the appellants - Nagarajan and Selvaraj - have assailed the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, [Madras High Court] dated 04th June, 2019 dismissing the criminal revision [CRLRC (MD) No. 111/2010] filed by them on the grounds assigned therein.

3. In the connected appeal, the appellant - Naresh Chandra - has assailed the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [Allahabad High Court] dated 04th July, 2019. The criminal revision [CRLR No. 1660/1998] filed by the appellant was dismissed thereby on similar grounds.

FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The case of the prosecution in the lead appeal is that a sample of curd was taken from the shop of the appellants on 26th June, 2001 at about 14:30 hours and sent for analysis. The analysis revealed that the standard, prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 [PoFA Act] and the relevant rules, was not fulfilled. A complaint came to be registered followed by trial. Upon perusal of the evidence, vide judgment and order dated 18th June, 2006, the Trial Court convicted Nagarajan and Selvaraj under Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) r/w Section 2(ia)(a)(m) of the PoFA Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (two) months each.

5. Aggrieved, Nagarajan and Selvaraj filed an appeal [CA No. 183 of 2004] before the concerned Appellate Court, which confirmed the conviction and the sentence of the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 18th December, 2009.

6. Still aggrieved, Nagarajan and Selvaraj invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Madras High Court unsuccessfully.

7. The case of the prosecution in the connected appeal is that at about 10:45 hours on 20th March, 1985, in the area of Karkala Bazaar, the concerned Food Inspector found Naresh Chandra selling spice, chilli powder, flour, cooking oil, salt and other stuff. Upon suspicion, the Food Inspector presented Form VI to Naresh Chandra who refused to accept and sign it. The Food Inspector then called on witnesses present there; however, no one agreed to take part except one Radhey Lal (PW2). Thereupon, an attempt was made by the Food Inspector to take a sample on his own. Naresh Chandra intimidated the Food Inspector and refused to allow him to take a sample. The complaint lodged by the Food Inspector eventually led to a trial. The Trial Court vide order dated 25th August, 1987 convicted Naresh Chandra u/s Section 7/10(1) r/w Section 16(1)(c)(d) of the PoFA Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 (two) more months.

8. The conviction and sentence had been carried in appeal [Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1987] by Naresh Chandra whereupon, the Appellate Court upheld the same and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16th November, 1988.

9. The appellate judgment and order having been subjected to challenge before the Allahabad High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, vide the impugned judgment, the court refused to interfere and dismissed the revision.

CONTENTIONS

10. Mollification of sentence is sought on behalf of the two sets of appellants by learned counsel appearing on their behalf on the common following grounds:

b. That Section 20AA of the PoFA Act violates Article 21 of the Constitution as denial of probation impacts the liberty of individuals without due consideration of their circumstances con