On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment clarifying the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, to offences committed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PoFA), between 1976 and its repeal in 2006. The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, unequivocally held that the benefit of probation is not available for such offences committed during this period.
Background
The appellants in the case had been convicted under the PoFA and sought the benefit of probation, arguing that the omission of Section 20AA in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), indicated a legislative intent to be more lenient towards offenders. They contended that under Article 20(1) of the Constitution, they should benefit from the lighter sentencing regime introduced by the FSS Act.
Legal Provisions and Arguments
Section 20AA of the PoFA, introduced in 1976, explicitly prohibited the grant of probation to offenders under the Act, with the exception of minors. The appellants argued that the repeal of this provision by the FSS Act signified a shift towards a more lenient approach. They also cited Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing principles of reformative justice.
However, the State opposed this argument, asserting that the strict language of Section 20AA remained binding for offences committed between 1976 and 2006. The government also relied on Section 97 of the FSS Act, a savings clause that preserved the applicability of PoFA penalties for offences committed before its repeal.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court rejected the appellants' arguments, emphasizing the binding nature of Section 20AA during the relevant period. The Court observed that the repeal of Section 20AA by the FSS Act did not have retrospective effect. It further noted that Section 97 of the FSS Act preserved the penalties under the repealed PoFA, thereby precluding any retrospective application of probationary relief through the new legislation.
The Court distinguished the present case from T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe (1983), where lighter penalties under a new law were allowed retrospectively because no savings clause existed. The Court followed the principle laid down in Basheer v. State of Kerala (2004), which affirmed that savings clauses block retrospective modification of sentences.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the principle that legislative provisions, especially those with penal consequences, must be applied as they stand at the time the offence is committed. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the legislative intent expressed in specific provisions like Section 20AA of the PoFA.
Furthermore, the ruling highlights the Court's commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that offenders are held accountable for their actions as per the laws in force at the time of the offence. It also serves as a reminder that changes in the law, particularly those that may be more lenient, do not automatically apply to past offences unless explicitly stated.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's decision in this case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of legislative clarity and the principle of non-retroactivity in criminal law. By upholding the applicability of Section 20AA of the PoFA for offences committed between 1976 and 2006, the Court has reinforced the legal framework surrounding food safety and the accountability of offenders during that period. This judgment is a significant contribution to the jurisprudence on the application of probation laws and the interpretation of legislative changes in the context of criminal offences.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.