Nagarajan vs State Of Tamil Nadu 2025 INSC 703 -Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Probation

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - 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. (Para 41)

Interpretation of Statutes - Criminal Laws - Is mollification of a punishment on the ground that the new enactment provides for a lesser punishment permissible ?- A ‘repeals and savings’ clause in any statute is not mere surplusage that the Courts may ignore in the interpretation of the law. When a ‘repeal and savings’ clause specifically protects a penalty provided for in the old enactment, the intention of the legislature is clear. This Court, in its enthusiasm, cannot and should not provide a benefit to the accused that is not permitted in law. 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. (Para 43) -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be given when a ‘repeal and savings’ clause in the repealing statute expressly saves a penalty incurred under the repealed statute. (Para 48)

Sentencing - Difference between reduction or mollification of a sentence and releasing an offender on probation - 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”. (Para 41)

LawLens - AI-Driven Legal Research for Indian Laws

Discover AI-powered legal research tools for Indian law professionals

AI-Driven Legal Research for Indian Laws