Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court in its recent judgment has held that if the amendment in a criminal law is beneficial to any of the accused persons then it could be applied to earlier cases as well as the cases which are pending in the Court which was in the case of Trilok Chand v. State Of Himachal Pradesh.
The bench comprising of Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Sanjiv Khanna noticed that the said order had referred to a judgment in T. Barai vs. Henry Ah Hoe and Another. [(1983) SCC177] wherein it was opined that the amendment was beneficial to the accused persons, it could be applied to earlier or pending cases in the Court.
The crux of the article is based on that since the amendment was beneficial to the accused person it could be applied to earlier cases as well as which are pending in the Court.
In the above-mentioned case, the Appellant Trilok Chand was convicted under Sec16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. In this case he was sentenced for three months with fine of Rs. 5000/- wherein his revision petition was dismissed.
Further he went on an appeal before the Apex Court , the only submission was that under Section 51 and 52 of the Food Safety and Standard Act 2006, the maximum penalty for sub-standard food and branding is only fine.the basis of this was placed on an earlier order passed by SC in the case of Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan.
Therefore, in the light of above judgments and taking note of the minute details of the case SC opined that if there are any amendment in criminal laws then it can be accommodating to be applied in pending or earlier cases in the court for the accused persons.
86540
103860
630
114
59824