Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the legal challenges raised by two sets of appellants seeking the benefit of probation and reduced sentencing under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), for offences committed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PoFA Act). The Court held:
“The benefit that the Probation Act envisages is inapplicable to an offence committed under the PoFA Act, if the offence has been committed between introduction of Section 20AA in 1976 and its repeal in 2006 by the FSS Act.”
and further ruled:
“The 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be given when a ‘repeal and savings’ clause in the repealing statute expressly saves a penalty incurred under the repealed statute.”
However, invoking judicial comity and fairness, the Court partly allowed both appeals and converted the sentences of imprisonment to fines, relying on precedents in C. Mohammed and A.K. Sarkar & Co.
Facts
Lead Appeal: On June 26, 2001, food inspectors collected curd samples from a shop. Initial analysis found it did not meet the prescribed standard for buffalo milk, and the shop owners were convicted under Sections 7(1), 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a)(m) of the PoFA Act. The sentence included 6 months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹3,000.
Connected Appeal: On March 20, 1985, a food inspector attempted to collect samples from a vendor selling chilli powder and other items. The vendor refused and allegedly intimidated the inspector. He was convicted under Section 7/10(1) read with Section 16(1)(c)(d) of the PoFA Act, sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,000.
In both cases, conviction and sentence were upheld in appeal and revision by the respective High Courts.
Issues
- Whether the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be granted to the appellants convicted under the PoFA Act?
- Whether, in the alternative, the reduced sentence under the FSS Act can be imposed instead?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Violation of Fundamental Rights: Section 20AA of the PoFA Act denies probation benefits and thus violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by denying individualized sentencing and rehabilitation.
- Contradicts Reformative Justice: It is inconsistent with Section 360 of the CrPC and the object of the Probation Act.
- FSS Act Shows Legislative Shift: The repeal of Section 20AA in the FSS Act suggests a policy move towards reformation and away from incarceration.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Express Legislative Intent: Section 20AA explicitly bars probation, and Section 97 of the FSS Act saves past penalties. Thus, no benefit can be extended under the Probation Act or the FSS Act for past offences.
- Public Health Priority: Food adulteration is a crime against public health requiring strict consequences. The legislative amendment in 1976 was to eliminate ambiguity and ensure deterrence.
Analysis of the Law
- Literal Interpretation Prevails: The Court reaffirmed that when statutory language is clear, there is no scope for judicial interpretation to override legislative intent.
- Probation Not Permissible: Section 20AA explicitly bars probation unless the offender is under 18. Hence, the bar is categorical.
- Reformative Justice Cannot Override Legislative Prohibition: While reformation is a principle of criminal jurisprudence, courts cannot override clear legislative prohibitions in its name.
Precedent Analysis
- Ishar Das (1973): Prior to Section 20AA, probation was permissible under PoFA Act, but with caution.
- Pyarali K. Tejani (1974): Held that economic offences require deterrence, not probation.
- T. Barai (1983): Allowed reduced sentencing under beneficial statutes but was distinguishable as it did not involve a repeal clause.
- Babu Ram (1987): Explicitly held that Section 20AA overrides the Probation Act.
- Basheer (2004): Upheld validity of excluding cases pending in appeal from mollified sentence under NDPS Act amendment.
- C. Mohammed (2006): Allowed substitution of imprisonment with fine due to analytical discrepancy in food samples.
- A.K. Sarkar (2024): Despite reservations, the Court followed this judgment in the interest of comity.
Court’s Reasoning
- No Absurdity in Statute: Section 20AA leaves no scope for interpretation; its plain meaning must be applied.
- Rehabilitation vs. Deterrence: While the Court acknowledged the value of rehabilitation, it held that deterrence through punishment is justified in cases involving public health.
- Repeal and Savings Clause Controls: Section 97 of the FSS Act preserves penalties under PoFA Act, preventing retrospective application of reduced sentences.
- Judicial Discipline: Even though the Court disagreed with A.K. Sarkar, it followed it in the interest of finality and fairness, given the prolonged pendency of the case.
Conclusion
- Probation cannot be granted for PoFA offences committed between 1976 and 2006.
- Reduced sentence under the FSS Act is not applicable due to the savings clause.
- Conviction in the lead case is questionable due to discrepancy in sample analysis reports.
- The Court adopted a lenient sentence in both cases based on judicial comity and precedent.
Implications
- Reinforces that Courts must respect legislative commands, especially when expressed unambiguously.
- Establishes that repeal and savings clauses have binding effect on sentencing.
- Reinforces the non-applicability of the Probation Act where specifically excluded.
- Demonstrates the Court’s willingness to show leniency based on long pendency and fairness despite legal bars.
Final Relief
- Lead Appeal: Six-month imprisonment converted to a fine of ₹30,000 each for both appellants.
- Connected Appeal: Six-month imprisonment converted to a fine of ₹20,000.
- Time to pay fines extended till end of June 2025, failing which the imprisonment sentence will revive.