M/s. A.K. Sarkar & Co. vs. State of West Bengal [March 7, 2024]
Background
The case arose from proceedings under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (“the Act”). On December 6, 2000, a food inspector inspected the shop of M/s. A.K. Sarkar & Co. in Kolkata and collected samples of sugar-boiled confectioneries for laboratory testing. Although the items were found not adulterated, the packets were not labeled with the complete address of the manufacturer and the date of manufacture, violating Rule 32(c) and (f) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Trial and Appellate Proceedings
The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Act for selling misbranded food (as defined under Section 2(ix)(k)), sentencing appellant no.2 and another to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine, and the company to a fine. The conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge and the Calcutta High Court, though the High Court reduced appellant no.2’s sentence to three months.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, noted that all three lower courts had concurrently found the appellants guilty of selling misbranded food, as the packets lacked mandatory labeling. The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that they were not manufacturers and thus not liable, holding that the law applied to anyone selling misbranded food, not just manufacturers.
A key legal question was whether the punishment should be governed by the repealed 1954 Act or the subsequent Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The latter, under Section 52, prescribes only a fine for misbranding, not imprisonment. The Supreme Court clarified that Article 20(1) of the Constitution prohibits imposing a higher punishment under a new law for an old offence but does not prevent imposing a lesser punishment if the new law so provides.
Judgment
Given that the offence occurred in 2000 and more than two decades had elapsed, the Supreme Court converted the sentence of imprisonment to a fine, aligning with the current law’s more lenient penalty. The conviction for selling misbranded food was upheld, but the punishment was reduced to a fine, granting partial relief to the appellants.
Significance
The judgment affirms that courts can impose a lesser punishment under a new law for an old offence if it benefits the accused, in line with Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
It underscores the continuing liability of sellers (not just manufacturers) for compliance with food labeling laws.
The decision provides clarity on the retrospective application of beneficial penal provisions.
Citation:
M/s. A.K. Sarkar & Co. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 1447 of 2024, decided on March 7, 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments