Supreme Court Holds Probation Inapplicable For Food Adulteration Offences Committed Between 1976–2006; Repeal‑Savings Bar Prevents Sentence Mollification

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan heard two criminal appeals limited to sentence arising out of convictions under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PoFA). The appeals challenged orders of the Madras and Allahabad High Courts which had dismissed revisions against convictions and six‑month prison sentences imposed for offences under the PoFA.

The Court held that Section 20AA of the PoFA, as amended in 1976, expressly excluded the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and Section 360 CrPC for persons convicted under the PoFA (except where the convicted person was under 18), and therefore the benefit of probation could not be granted to offenders who committed offences in the period 1976–2006. The Court further held that the repeal of the PoFA by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) did not entitle appellants to the lesser punishments under the FSS Act because the repeal‑and‑savings clause preserved penalties and proceedings under the repealed statute. The Court noted that “the safety of citizens is paramount” and described food adulteration as “a menace to public health.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “While deliberating on the second question, we have also considered the claim that the sentence should at least be reduced as per the FSS Act. Several decisions have been cited before us to contend that mollification of a punishment on the ground that the new enactment provides for a lesser punishment is permissible. We are, however, in respectful disagreement with such proposition insofar as the instant case is concerned. A ‘repeals and savings’ clause in any statute is not mere surplusage that the Courts may ignore in the interpretation of the law. When a ‘repeal and savings’ clause specifically protects a penalty provided for in the old enactment, the intention of the legislature is clear. This Court, in its enthusiasm, cannot and should not provide a benefit to the accused that is not permitted in law. Mollification must only be provided in cases where a provision in relation to ‘repeal and savings’ is either not present or where the ‘repeal and savings’ clause envisages such a possibility. This is in line with the decision rendered in Basheer (supra). Therefore, the second question too is decided against the appellants.”

Background The lead appeal arose from the conviction of Nagarajan and Selvaraj for selling curd allegedly not meeting prescribed fat standards; the public analyst reported 4.6% fat against a 5% minimum for buffalo milk while the Central Food Laboratory reported 8.3% fat, producing a material discrepancy. The trial court convicted and sentenced both to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine; the appellate and Madras High Court revisions were dismissed. The connected appeal concerned Naresh Chandra, convicted for preventing a food inspector from taking samples; his convictions and sentence were affirmed on appeal and the Allahabad High Court dismissed revision.

Appellants sought either probation under the Probation of Offenders Act or, alternatively, application of reduced punishment under the FSS Act. They relied on principles of beneficial construction of penal statutes and Article 20(1) of the Constitution (prohibition on greater ex post facto penalties). The States relied on the clear wording of Section 20AA which provided: “Nothing contained in the Probation of offenders Act, 1958 … or section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 … shall apply to a person convicted of an offence under this Act unless that person is under eighteen years of age.” The State of Tamil Nadu emphasised legislative intent to treat food adulteration as a public‑health offence and relied on the amendment’s Statement of Objects and Reasons.

The Court reviewed precedents including Ishar Das, Jai Narain, Pyarali Tejani, T. Barai, Babu Ram, Basheer and A.K. Sarkar & Co. It distinguished cases where beneficial construction or retroactive mitigation applied, and followed Babu Ram for the proposition that a special provision like Section 20AA overrides the Probation Act. The Court also accepted the reasoning in Basheer that an express repeal‑and‑savings clause precluding application of the new Act to penalties under the old Act prevented automatic mollification by the FSS Act. Noting discrepancies in forensic reports in the lead matter, the Court applied established practice of resolving such conflicts to the accused's benefit.

Resulting orders converted the six‑month imprisonment sentences into fines: Nagarajan and Selvaraj were directed to pay Rs. 30,000 each; Naresh Chandra was directed to pay Rs. 20,000. Each was given time until the end of June 2025 to pay; failure to do so would revive the original imprisonment term of six months, subject to set‑off for any prior custody.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 703 (Criminal Appeal No. 1390 of 2025 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 8401/2022; Criminal Appeal No. 2054 of 2025 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 2217/2022) Case Title: Nagarajan & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu; Naresh Chandra @ Naresh Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): (Advocates not specified in the reported judgment) For the Respondent(s): (Advocates not specified in the reported judgment)