Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 15) clarified that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be invoked for offences committed under the now-repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PoFA), during the period between 1976 and its repeal in 2006 by the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act).

“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...”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan was hearing a case where the appellants, convicted under the PoFA Act, argued that they should be granted probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, citing Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and principles of reformative justice. They further contended that the omission of Section 20AA of PoFA (which bars probation) in the newer FSS Act indicated a legislative shift towards leniency, and therefore, under Article 20(1), they should benefit from the lighter sentencing regime introduced by the FSS Act.

However, the State opposed this argument, asserting that the strict language of Section 20AA, which explicitly prohibits the grant of probation to PoFA offenders (except minors), remained binding. The government also relied on Section 97 of the FSS Act, a savings clause that preserved the applicability of PoFA penalties for offences committed before its repeal.

Rejecting the appellants' argument, the judgment authored by Justice Dipankar Datta held that since the offence was committed between 1976 to 2006, Section 20AA of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which expressly excludes the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act to offences under it, must be strictly enforced. The Court further observed that the repealing and saving clause of the Food Safety and Standards Act preserves the penalties under the repealed law, thereby precluding any retrospective application of probationary relief through the new legislation.

The Court added that Section 97 of the FSS Act clearly saved the penalties under the repealed PoFA Act. It distinguished the present case from T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe (1983) 1 SCC 177, where lighter penalties under new law were allowed retrospectively because no savings clause existed. The Court followed the principle laid down in Basheer v. State of Kerala (2004) 3 SCC 609, which affirmed that savings clauses block retrospective modification of sentences.

“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 said.

The reasoning given by the Court was that in cases of food adulteration, public health considerations take precedence over principles of reformative justice, classifying it as a grave offence for which the legislature clearly intended the imposition of strict penalties under the repealed PoFA.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was partly allowed, as the conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified to that of imposition of a fine.

Case Title: NAGARAJAN & ANR. VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 580

Click here to read/download the judgment

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