Supreme Court: Benefit Of Mollification Of Sentence Can’t Be Given When Repealing Statute Expressly Saves Penalty Incurred Under Repealed Statute
The Supreme Court said that when a “repeal and savings” clause specifically protects a penalty provided for in the old enactment, the intention of the legislature is clear.
Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the benefit of mollification of sentence cannot be given when a “repeal and savings” clause in the repealing statute expressly saves a penalty incurred under the repealed statute.
The Court held thus in two Criminal Appeals filed by the accused persons, arising from different incidents of crime and questioning the correctness of two decisions of the respective High Courts involving the same question of law.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan observed, “The benefit that the Probation Act envisages is inapplicable to an offence committed under the PoFA Act, if the offence has been committed between introduction of Section 20AA in 1976 and its repeal in 2006 by the FSS Act, in line with the decision rendered in Babu Ram (supra). … The benefit of mollification of sentence cannot be given when a ‘repeal and savings’ clause in the repealing statute expressly saves a penalty incurred under the repealed statute.”
The Bench said that when a “repeal and savings” clause specifically protects a penalty provided for in the old enactment, the intention of the legislature is clear.
Senior Advocate S. Nandakumar represented the Appellants/Accused while AOR Sabarish Subramanian represented the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
In the lead Appeal, the Appellants-accused assailed the Judgment of the Madras High Court which dismissed the Criminal Revision filed by them on the grounds assigned therein. In the connected Appeal, the other accused assailed the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed his Criminal Revision. As per the prosecution case, a sample of curd was taken from the shop of the Appellants and was sent for analysis. The analysis revealed that the standard, prescribed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PoFA Act) and the relevant rules, was not fulfilled.
A Complaint was registered followed by trial and the Trial Court convicted the Appellants under Sections 7(1) and 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 2(ia)(a)(m) of the PoFA Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 (six) months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. Being aggrieved, the Appellants filed an Appeal before the Appellate Court which confirmed their conviction. Still aggrieved, they invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Madras High Court unsuccessfully. The other accused in the connected Appeal was also convicted under Section 7/10(1) read with Section 16(1)(c)(d) of the PoFA Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Hence, the case was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “A canonical rule of statutory interpretation, i.e, the rule of literal construction, is that the words of a statute should be read as it is and should be understood in their natural and ordinary sense. A reference to the rule of beneficial construction of a statute or any other rule of statutory interpretation may be resorted to only if the literal rule fails to provide suitable guidance or results in absurdity.”
The Court enunciated that there exists a fundamental difference between reduction or mollification of a sentence and releasing an offender on probation. It added that the probationary process envisages that first time offenders who are capable of reformation can be provided a benefit such that they can continue to a be a part of society as capable and law-abiding citizens in the future.
“The thrust of penology in the past few decades has been focused on the reformation of an individual. “Every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future”. While there is no quarrel with the probationary process, we ought to remain subservient to the wisdom of the legislature in applying the benefit of probation. This Court cannot offend the express provisions present in any legislative instrument merely to provide a benefit to an offender, not envisaged under the law”, it further said.
The Court remarked that, in its enthusiasm, it cannot and should not provide a benefit to the accused that is not permitted in law. It also observed that 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.
“As per the approach in C. Mohammed (supra), the lead appeal has to be partly allowed considering the facts and circumstances and the discrepancy in the analysis reports of the seized curd. … The connected appeal also needs to be partly allowed on the basis of the dictum in A.K. Sarkar & Co. (supra)”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court partly allowed both the Appeals and converted the sentences of imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively.
Cause Title- Nagarajan & Anr. v. The State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 703)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate S. Nandakumar, AOR P.V. Yogeswaran, Advocates R.Satish Kumar, V. Susheatha, Deepika Nandakumar, Aakash Elango, Sandhya Dutt, and Mohit Kumar Gupta.
Respondent: AOR Sabarish Subramanian
