9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his conviction Under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short "the Act") sentencing him to three months' imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. The Food Inspector visited the shop of the Appellant and purchased three packets of rewari weighing 3 x 700 gms each on payment of Rs. 60/- for which receipt was granted. The necessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitting that there are concurrent findings of misbranding in accordance with the law, as it then stood on the date of occurrence. 6. We have considered the respective submissions. In Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2006, this Court relied on a decision in T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and Anr. (1983) 1 SCC 177 wherein it was opined that since the amendment was beneficial to the Accused persons, it could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licable. But insofar as the Central Amendment Act reduces the punishment for an offence punishable Under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, there is no reason why the Accused should not have the benefit of such reduced punishment. The Rule of beneficial construction requires that even ex post facto law of such a type should be applied to mitigate the rigour of the law. The principle is based both on sou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, and literally both concerning and after the facts committed. But I do not consider any law ex post facto within the prohibition that mollifies the rigour of the criminal law, but only those that create or aggravate the crime or increase the punishment or change the Rules of evidence for the purpose of conviction.... There is a great and apparent difference between making an unlawful act lawful ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
