IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that beneficial amendments in law can be applied retrospectively to pending cases, modifying sentences accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Dev Choudhury, J.

1. Heard Mr. Y. Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. The present criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 is filed assailing a Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2010 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate No.II (Sadar), Kamrup, Guwahati in C.R.Case No. 82c/1999, whereby the accused petitioners were convicted under Section 7/16 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1954) and petitioners were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 6 (six) months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default to pay fine, Simple Imprisonment for another 1 (one) month. The further challenge is Judgment and Order dated 19.08.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2010, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

3. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s A.K.Sarkar & Co. & Anr. –Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors reported in 2024 INSC 186 , Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the sentence prescribed under Section 7/16 of the Act, 1954, at the relevant point of time when the alleged offence was committed was minimum Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months and fine of Rs. 1000/-. However, in terms of Section 52 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2006), the punishment prescribed is now only fine upto Rs. 3 lakhs and therefore he submits that the petitioners should also get benefit of the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The learned counsel, however, has confined his argument to the sentence only.

4. To consider the aforesaid submission, this Court is to go through the complaint filed against the petitioners. The basic allegation in the complaint is to the effect that as per the Public Analyst Report dated 18.11.1988, refined vegetable oil which is sold by the petitioner is rancid and does not conform to the standard and the same is misbranded. Such materials were seized from the possession of the petitioners. Accordingly, two petitioners along with the National Co-operative Consumer’s Federation of India Ltd. were prosecuted.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though three of the accused person including the accused No. 3 i.e. National Co-operative Consumer’s Federation of India Ltd were convicted, however, the accused No. 3, did not prefer any appeal and paid the fine. So far relating to the accused No. 1 and 2 from whose possession, the misbranded materials were recovered i.e. petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had preferred the present revision petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials available on record including the provisions of Act, 1954 and the Act, 2006.

7. Section 7 of the Act, 1954 prohibits any person to manufacture for sale or store, sell or to distribute any adulterated food and any misbranded food etc.

8. The allegation in the complaint as well as the conviction under Section 7 of the Act, 1954 of the petitioners herein, is relatable to adulteration and misbranding.

9. The Act, 2006 was enacted with an object to consolidate the laws relating to food and to establish the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India for laying down science based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import, to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

10. In terms of Section 97 of the Act, 2006, the Acts/Orders specified in Second Schedule were repealed, which include the Act, 1954. Clause-(ii) of Sub Section 1 of Section 97 of the Act, 2006 on the other hand prescribes that such repeal shall not