Judgment Intelligence
Petition Dismissed- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 7 December 1982
- Bench
- Justices A.P. Sen, E.S. Venkataramiah and R.B. Misra
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 — Sections 7, 16(1)(a), 16A, 20; Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976; Prevention of Adulteration of Food, Drugs and Cosmetics (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1973; Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 — Section 8; General Clauses Act, 1897 — Section 6; Constitution of India — Articles 20(1), 254
The appeal was dismissed; the Court clarified that nothing said would give the central Amendment Act retrospective operation where it creates new offences or enhances punishment (paras 26, 27).
Key holdings
- A later Act of Parliament on the same matter impliedly repeals a repugnant State law under the proviso to Article 254(2), even without express repeal (para 15).
- An accused has no vested right to a particular court or procedure, and the prosecutor has no right to the enhanced punishment of a repealed Act (para 17).
- Article 20(1) forbids only retroactive laws creating offences or enhancing punishment; a reduced punishment for the same offence must be extended to the accused (paras 22, 26).
- A later statute that again describes the same offence with a different punishment or procedure repeals the earlier statute by implication (para 25).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Zaverbai Amaidas v. The State of Bombay [1955] 1 S.C.R. 799 (citation from the SCR headnote; footnote not printed)
A later Central law on the same matter impliedly repeals a repugnant provincial law that had received assent; the Bombay Act enhancing punishment was impliedly repealed by the recast Section 7 of the Essential Supplies Act.
- B. Manna and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal 81 C.W.N. 1075 (Calcutta High Court; citation from the SCR headnote)
Single-Judge view, followed by the Magistrate, that the Central Amendment Act was not retrospective; its reasons were examined and rejected.
- In re Hale's Patent L.R. [1920] Ch. 377 (citation from the SCR headnote)
Relied on by the appellant for the rule that old rights are determined by the old procedure where the repealing Act deals with both; held not applicable.
View all precedents (8)
- State of Punjab v. Mohar Singh citation not printed (footnote missing in the JUDIS print)
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies to a repeal followed by fresh legislation unless the new Act manifests a contrary intention; it does not apply to the expiry of a temporary statute.
- [R.] v. The State of Punjab AIR 1965 SC 444 (footnote not printed; identified from the citator in that judgment's JUDIS print)
By majority, an appellate court can extend the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act to an accused convicted before it came into force; the rule of beneficial construction applies to such ex post facto law.
- Michell v. Brown [1959] 120 ER 909, 912 (as printed in the SCR headnote)
If a later statute again describes an offence created by a former statute and affixes a different punishment, varying the procedure, the earlier statute is repealed.
- Smith v. Benabo [1937] 1 All ER 523 (SCR headnote: "Smit v. Benabo")
Cited ("See also") with Michell v. Brown on implied repeal by a later statute describing the same offence.
- Regina v. Youle [1861] 158 ER 311, 315-316 (citation from the SCR headnote)
Where a later Act deals with precisely the same offences and imposes a different punishment, it is substituted for the earlier Act.
