The Supreme Court of India has clarified that individuals convicted of food adulteration offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PoFA), during the period between 1976 and 2006, cannot claim the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. This decision was pronounced by a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan on May 15.
Read Also:- Supreme Court to Hear Plea on NEET PG Marks Normalisation, Transparency Issues on May 20
“The benefit that the Probation Act envisages is inapplicable to an offence committed under the PoFA Act, if the offence has been committed between the introduction of Section 20AA in 1976 and its repeal in 2006 by the FSS Act,” the Court stated.
Case Background:
The case involved appellants convicted under the PoFA who sought probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, arguing that the newer Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act), 2006, indicated a legislative shift towards leniency by omitting Section 20AA, which barred probation. They invoked Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing reformative justice.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Rejects Plea for Action Against BJP Minister Vijay Shah Over Remarks on Colonel Sofiya
However, the State argued that Section 20AA of the PoFA explicitly prohibited probation for offenders, except minors. The government further cited Section 97 of the FSS Act, which preserved the penalties for offences committed before the PoFA's repeal.
The Court upheld the State's view, asserting that the strict language of Section 20AA, which expressly excludes the application of the Probation of Offenders Act to PoFA offences, must be enforced for offences committed between 1976 and 2006.
- The Court emphasized that Section 97 of the FSS Act saved the penalties under the repealed PoFA, precluding any retrospective application of probationary relief.
- The judgment distinguished this case from T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe (1983) 1 SCC 177, where lighter penalties under new laws were applied retrospectively due to the absence of a savings clause.
- It also cited Basheer v. State of Kerala (2004) 3 SCC 609, affirming that savings clauses block retrospective modification of sentences.
The Court highlighted that in cases of food adulteration, public health concerns outweigh reformative justice, classifying such offences as severe.
“Section 20AA of the PoFA Act read with Section 97 of the FSS Act makes it clear that the benefit under the Probation Act cannot be made applicable to an offence committed between 1976 (when Section 20AA was introduced) up to the repeal of the statute in 2006 by the FSS Act.”, the Court clarified.
Case Title: NAGARAJAN & ANR. VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Appearance:
For 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 Respondent(s) :Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
