Holding

The Central Amendment Act, being a later law on the same subject, impliedly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act, and pending prosecutions must be conducted under s.16A with the reduced punishment.

Summary

The appellant, a food inspector, charged the respondents with adulterating food under s.16(1)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as it stood in West Bengal after the 1973 State amendment, which prescribed life imprisonment and made the offence triable only by a Sessions Court. While the case was pending, Parliament enacted the 1976 Central Amendment Act, reducing the maximum punishment to three years, inserting s.16A for summary trial by a Judicial Magistrate, and altering the procedure. The Supreme Court examined whether the Central Amendment Act impliedly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act, whether s.6 of the General Clauses Act (and the analogous Bengal provision) applied, and whether the pending trial should follow the new procedure and reduced punishment. It held that, under Art.254(1) and the proviso to Art.254(2) of the Constitution, the later Central law created a repugnancy that impliedly repealed the State amendment from 1 April 1976, so the offence must be tried under s.16A and the accused is entitled to the reduced sentence. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976 impliedly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act, 1973.
Whether the repeal of the State amendment extinguishes the procedural and punitive provisions of the earlier law for pending proceedings.
Whether sections 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (and section 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899) apply to preserve liability under the repealed State law.
Whether the accused is entitled to the reduced punishment and summary trial under s.16A of the Central Amendment Act.

Legislation cited

Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899s. 8
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 262, s. 263, s. 264, s. 265
Constitution of Indias. Article 20(1), s. Article 254(1), s. Article 254(2)
General Clauses Act, 1897s. 6
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954s. 16(1)(a), s. 19A, s. 20, s. 21
Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act, 1976s. 16(1)(a), s. 16A, s. 20(2)
Prevention of Food Adulteration (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1973s. 16(1)(a) (substituted), s. 20

Subjects

statutory interpretationimplied repealconcurrent listcentral vs state legislationex post factobeneficial constructioncriminal procedurefood adulterationpunishment reductionsummary trial

Judgment

905
A
-T. BARAi
V,

HENRY AH HOB AND ANOTHER B
December 7, 1982

[A.P. SEN, B.S. VENltTARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, ff]

interpretation of Statutes-Central Act on a Jubject i'n Concurrent List
amended by State Act-State Act enhanced punishment--A later Central Amend- c
ment Act with respect to the same matter reduced the punjshment-State .amendmint
if impliedly repealed-Repeal followed by fresh legislation-Section 6 of General
Clauses Act-If applicable.

For'committing an offence under section 16(1)(a) of the Prevention of
•' Food Adulter8.tion Act, 1954, as it stood on March 1, 1972, 'the maximum punish-
ment prescribed was imprisonment for six years and fine. Section 2l of the Act
provided that such offences were triable by a Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate
'First Class. By the Prevention of Adu1~eration of Food, Drugs and Cosmetics·
(West Bengal Amendment) Act. 1973, enacted by the State Legislature of West
Bengal,· the maximum punishment for an offence under this section had been
enhanced to iolprisonment for life, as a result of which an offence committed
under the section in the State of West Bengal became exclusively triable by a
court of sessions. The Amendment Act r~ccived the assent of the President and
E
came into force from April 29, 1974. In 1976 Parliament amended the Food
Adulteration Act and the amendment came into force with eff'"'ct from April 1,
1976. For offences punishable under section 16(1)(a) the Amendment Act
provided for. a reduced punishment for a term of three years instead of six years
as before. By the same Amendment Act section J6A was inserted in the Act
· providing that all offences under section 16(1) shall be tried in a summary way by
a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, or by a Metropolitan Magistrate. F

On September 24, I 975 the appellant lodged a complaint against the
respondent for having committed an offence punishable u·nder section l6{1)(a)
read with section 7 of the Act. On the date ·qf the commission of the alleged
offence the Jaw in force in the State of West Beiigal was the 1954 Act as amended
G
..
by the West Bengal Amendment ·Act .

Purporting to follow the decisio~ of a single Judge of the Calcutta High
Court in B. Manna and Ors. .v. State of West Bengal, (81 C.W.N. 1075) in which
~-
it was held that the Central Amendment Act was not intended to be retrospective
in operation because it had not expressly repealed the West Bengal amendment H
nor dealt with the Act or any of its provisions in any manner. the Magistrate
held that the case was triable by the Court 9f $essiop3,
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983] J S.C.R.

A DiSagreeing with the view of the single JuUge, a Divsion Bench of the High
Court held that after the Central Amendment Act came into rOrce on April 1,
1976 all proceedings pending for trial of offences punishable under' s. J6(1)(a) as
amended by tbe West Bengal Act which had not been.concluded, would cease to
be governed by the West Bengal Amendment Act and would come within the
purview of the Central. Act as amended by.the Central Amendment Act and that
therefore such offences committed prior to the amendment were triable ·in
B aCcordance with the procedure under s., 16A as amended by the Central Amend-
ment Act.

On the question whether the previous operation of the repealed West
Bengal Amendment Act in respect of any liability incurred thereunder is preserved
bys. 8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 which is in pari materia withs. 6
of',lhe General.Clauses'Act, 1897 both as to procedure for trial of such offences
c and the nature of punishment liable to be imposed.

Di'smissing the appeal,

HELD : By virtue of the proviso to Art. 254 (2) of the Constitution,
Parliament may repeal or amend a repugnant State Jaw either directly or by itself
'by enacting a la\v repugnant to the State law with respect to the ~ame m8.tter.
D Even though the subsequent law inade by Parliament does not expressly repeal a
State law, the State Jaw will become void under Article 254 (I) if it conflicts with
a later law made by Parliament creating repugnancy. Such repugnancy may arise
where both laws operate in the same field and the two cannot possibly stand
together: As for example, where both prescribe punishment for the same offence,·
both the·punishments differs in degree of kind .or in the procedure prescribed. In
all Such cases the law made by Parliament shall prevail over the State law under
E Art. 254(1). In the instant case when ParliameOt stepped in and enacted the
Central Amendment Act, whicll is a later law made by Parliament with reipect to
the same matter the West Bengal A.mendment Act stood impliedly repealed with
effect from April 1, 1976. [915 D-G]

Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The State of Bombay [1955] l S.C.R. 799, applied.

F The applicability of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is ·not ruled
out when there is a repeal of an enactment followed by fresh legislation. But the
Parliament having reenacted the Jaw relating to the same offence under s. l6(l)(a)
of ihe Act and provided for altered procedure and also provided a reduced
sentencr. the accused must be tried according to the new procedure provided by
8• l6A. of lhe Act and inust al~o hav..: t:li.:: ben-!fit Jfthc reduced punishment.
[919 G-H]
G Dictum of Sargant J. in Re: Hale's Patent L.R. (1920] Ch. 377, held in
applicable.

Inso/ar as the Central Amendment Act creatl!s new offenCes or enhances
punishment for a panicular t}pe of offence, no person can be convicted by such
H rex-post facto law nor can Cthe .'enhanced punishment prescribed by amendment
be applicable; but insofar as it reduces the punishment for an offence punishable
unde'r s. l6(1)(a) of the Act, there is no re~son why the a"ccused sQould: not
T. BARAi v. HBNRY AN HOE (Sen, J.} 907

have the benefit of such reduced punishment. The rule of beneficial construction A
requires that even ex post factO law of such a type should be applied to- mitigate
the rigour of the law. [919 F-Hl

Crai~s on' Statute Law, 7th edn. at pp. 387-388 referred to.

It is a we11-setiled rule of construction that when a later statute again
describes an offence created by an ea.flier statute and imposes a ~ifferent punish- B
ment or varies the procedure, the tarlier statute is repealed by implication.

Michell v; Brown [1959] 120 ER 909, 912, Smit v. Benabo [1937] 1 All ER
523 and Regjna v. Youle [1861] 158 ER 311, 315·316 referred to.

The rule is however subject to the limitation contained in Art. 20(1)
against ex post facto law providing for a greater punishment and has Do applica-
c
tion where ·the offence described in the later Act is not the sam~ as in the earlier
Act i.e, .when the essential ingredients of the two ·offences are ·different.· In the ·
premises, the Central Amendment Act having dealt with the same offence as the
one punishable under s. 16(1)(a) of the Act and provided for a reduced punish~
ment, the accused must have the benefit of the reduced punishment. [921 E-F]
o.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 40
of 1979.

From the Judgment and Order dated the 5th June, 1978 of the
Calcuita High Court in Criminal Revision No. 133 of 1978.
.E
D. Mukherjee, Pradeep Ghosh and P.K. Mukhtrjee for the
appellant.

N.C. Ta/ukdar and Am/an Ghosh. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

G.S. Chatterjee foue.spondent No. 3 (State of Bengal). F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered· by

SEN, J. This appeal by special leave from a judgment of the
Calcutta High Court dated June 5, 1978 raises a question of some
complexity. The question is as to the applicability of s. 16A of the G -
Prevention· of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ("Act" for short) as
inserted by the Prevention ·of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Act,
1976 (for short "the Central Amendment Act") with respect to pro-
secutions 1.aunched under s.16(1) (a) read with s.7 of the Act in the·
State of West Bengal between the period from April 29. ·19H to H
April l, 1976. Such offences according to the law then in force i.e.
the·Act as amend~d ·by the Preve11ti01'.! of A,duller>1tio11 of Food,
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983) 1 S.C.R.
A
Drugs and Cosmetics (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1973 (for short
"the West Bengal Amendment Act") were punishable with imprison-
ment for life and therefore triable by the Court of Sessions.

It is common ground that the offence with which the respon· ·
B dents are charged is alleged to have been committed under s.16(l)(a)
at a time when the Act stood amended in its application to the State
of West Bengal by the provisions of the West Bengal Amendment
Act. If the law continued to stand as it stood on the date of the
offence which was so committed, there would have been no difficulty .
because the maximum penalty would be imprisonment for life and
c fine and as "such the offences would be exclusively triable by the
. Court of Sessions. But a change was brought about when Parliament
enacted the Central· Amendment Act which came into force on April
1, 1976 ·by which the scheme of s.16 of the Act providing for various
punishments was materially altered; so also the procedure for the
trial of such offences. The effect of the Central Amendment Act was
D that the West Bengal Amendment Act stood impliedly repealed with
effect from April 1, 1976 and the question is whether the previous
operation of the repealed West Bengal Amendment Act in respect of
.any liability incurred thereunder is preserved by s.8 of .the Bengal
General Clauses Act, 1899 which is pari materia with s.6 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897 both as to procedure for trial jof such
E offences and the nature of punishment liable to be imposed.

First as to facts. On August 16, 197 5 the appellant, a Food
Inspector of the Corporation of Calcutta, visited the· Chungwa Res·
taurant run by the respondents at Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta and
purchased a quantity of Hyacinth's ground white pepper (compound)
F with fried rice powder and sent the same to a Public Analyst for ana·
lysis. On such analysis, the sample was found to be adulterated as it -
contained no rice powder but wheat powder. On September 24, 1975
the appellant lodged a complaint against the respondents for having
committed an offence punishab.le under s.16(J)(a) rea~ with s.7 of
the Act in the Court of Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta. The
G gravamen of the charge was that the respondents had stored and/or
exposed for sale and/or used Hyacinth's ground white pepper
(compound) with fried rice powJer for the purpose of manufacturing
and .p.reparing different articles of food which was adulterated and
misbranded.
H
On the date of the. commission of the alleged offence i.e. ori
August 16,;1975 the law jp force in the· State o! West Bengal was
•

t. BARAi v. HENRY Aii HOE (Sen, J,) 9o9
the Act as amended by the West Bengal Amendment Act which pro- A
vided that such an offence would be punishable with imprisonment
for life. The learned Magistrate following the decision of Anil Kumar
Sen,J. in B. Manna and Ors. v. The State'of West Bengal(') sustain~
ed a preliminary objection raised· on behalf of the Corporation and
held that the case was triable by the Court of Sessions. Disagreeing
with the 'view of Anil Kumar Sen, J. in B. Manna's case, (supra). a B
· Divisio~ Bench of the High Couri held that after the Central
Amendment Act came into force on April 1, 1976, all proceedings
pending for trial of such offences punishable under s.16( I)(a) of the
Act as amended by the West Bengal Amendment Act which had not
been concluded, would cease to be governed by the West Bengal
Amendment Act and would come within the purview of the Act as c
. amended by the Central Amendment. Act and therefore such offences
committed prior to such amendment are triable in accordance with
the procedure prescribed by s.16A of the Act as amended by-the
Central Amendment Act. It accordingly set aside the order of the
learned Magistrate and directed him to proceed with the trial.
D
Upon these facts, three questions fall for consideration in the
appeal viz. (I) whether the Central Amendment Act impliedly repeal-
ed· the· West Bengal Amendment Act with effect from April 1, 1976;
and if so, the effect of such repeal. (2) Whether the High Court was
justified in holding that the West Bengal Amendment Act shall be E
deemed to have been obliterated from the Statute Book for all
intents and purposes inasmuch as the Central Amendment Act mani-
fests an intention to the contrary so as _to excludethe operation .of·
s.8 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899. And (3) Are the pend-
ing proceedings to be governed by the change of procedure brought
about by s. I 6A of the. Act as introduced by the Central Amendment F
Act; and further whether the continued operation of the repealed
West Bengal Amendment Act is preserved with regard to the punish-
ment to be imposed.

For a proper appreciation of· the points in controversy, it is
G
necessary to deal with the statutory changes brought about. First we
may refer to the provisions of the Act as it stood on March I, I 972,
the relevant provisions whereof were as-follows :
,
• (1) 81 C.W.N. 107S.
•

910 SUPREME COURt REPORTS [!9831 I S.C.R •.
A "16(1) If any person -
(a) whether by himself or by any oiher person on his
behalf imports into India or manufactures for sale,
or stores, sells or distributes any article of food-
•
(i) which is adulterated or misbranded or the sale
B of which is prohibited by the Food (Health) autho-
rity in the interest of public health;

(II") ...
. ... "*
He shall, in addition to the penalty to which he
c may be liable under the provisions of s.6, be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than six months but which may extend to six years,
and with fine which shall not be less than one thou-
sand rupees.
0 Provided that-
(i) if the offence is under sub-cl. (i) of cl. (a) and
is with respect to an article of food which is adul-
terated under sub-cl. (i) of cl. (i) of s.2 or misbran-
ded under sub-cl. (k) of cl. (ix) of that section ; ·or

E ** .... .... ...
the court may for any adequate and special reasons to ·
be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than six months or of
fine of less than one thousand rupees or of both im-
prisonment for a term of less than six months and fine
F of less than one thousand rupees."

"20(1) ** ""
(2) No court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate
or a Magistrate of the First Class shall try any of(ence
under this Act."
G
"" .... *" ....
21. Notwithstanding rnything contained in s.32 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, it shall be lawful
for any Presidency Magistrate or any Magistrate of the
h first class to pass any sentence aut.horized by this Act, in
excess of bis powers under s. 32 of the said Code."
T. BARAi v. HENRY AH HOE (Sen, J.) !ill

.
On these provisions, the maximum
.
punishment which could be
imposed for committing any offence under s.16(1 )(a) was imprison-
A

ment for six years and fine. Such an offence not being under the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 was triable not exclusively by the Court of
Sessions under the provisions of s.29(2) of the Cod; of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 read with Schedule II thereunder. To overcome the
limit imposed by s.32 of the Code on sentences which a Presidency
Magistrate or a Magistrate of First Class could impose, s.21 of the
Act was inserted .. The result was that such offences become triable
by a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class. That

.
~--·
was the law in force in the whole of India as on March I, 1972•

On April 29, 1974, the Prevention of Adulteration of Food,
c
i
Drugs and Cosmetics (West Bengal Amendment) Act, .1973 enacted
by the State Legislature of Wesi Bengal having been assented to by
the President, became the Jaw applicable to the State of West Bengal
as from that date. It would appear that the State of West Bengal
had taken a step forward with a view to. make anti-social offences .D
such as adulteration of articles of food meant for human consump-
tion' or manufacture or sale of spurious drugs etc. which consdtuted
a menace to the society <!Ild deserved a deterrent punishment, to be
punishable with imprisonment for life. B.6 of that Act inserted the
following amendment. ,
E
"In the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954-
•
*" ** *" **
(ii) in section 16-

(a) in sub·s.(l), for the words. "a term which shall not be F
Jess than six months but which may extend to six years,
and with fine which shall not be 'less than one thou-
sand rupees", the words "life and shall also be liable
to fine" shall be substituted;"
The following words were substituted in the proviso to sub-s.(1) : G
"(b) in the proviso tci sub-s.(l), for the words "the Court
may for any adequate and special reasons to be men-
tioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprison-
ment for a terin of Jess than . six m.onths or fine of Jess· H
than one thousand rupees or of both imprisonment for
a term of less than six months and fine of Jess than
912 SUPREME COURT REl'OlllS (1983] I s:c.R.

A one thousand rupees", the following words shall be
substituted, namely :-
- "(ii) if the Court thinks that for auy adequate and
• special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment
a lesser sentence would serve the ends of justice,
8
the.Court may impose a sentence which is less than a
sentence of imprisonment for life;"

It will be seen that the West Bengal Amendment Act brought'
about a radical change so far as the Act was concerned in its appli·
c cation to the State of West Bengal. The maximum punishment-for
an offence under s. !6(l){a) when committed in the State was punish-
ment of imprisonment for life so that under the provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such an offence became exclusive•
ly triable by a Court of Sessions and ceased to be triable either by
a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class.
D
For this reason, the provisions of s.20 were also materially
altered :

"20(1) All offences punishable under this Act shall be
cognizable and non-bailable.
E
(2) Any police officer not below the rank of a Sub· .,._
Inspector of Police may arrest without warl'ant
any person against -whom a reasonable complaint
has been made or credible information has been
received of his having been concerned in any of
the offences punishable under this Act."
./
-
.
The Act also introduced ·s.I.9A with regard to burden of proof and
it read :

"19A. When any article intended for food is seized from
G any person [in the reasonable belief that the same is adul-
terated or misbranded. the burden of proving that such
article intended for food is not adulterated or misbranded
shall be on the person from whose possession such article
intended for food was seized.'' A

H
It was not long before Parliament stepped in to meet the
growing menace of the anti-social offence of adulteration of articles
T. BARAi v. _HENRY AH HOE (Sen, J.) 913

of food meant for human consumption which was a threat to the A
national well-being and it was felt that such offences must be rutb.iii
Jessly dealt with. It was also felt that there should be a summary
trial of these offences. The Prevention of Food Adulteration
(Amendment) Act, 1976 was accordingly brought i_~to force with
effect from April I, 1976. It not only created new offences but also
enhanced the punishments provided. But at the same time it also B
provided for graded punishment for various types of offences. loci·
dentally, it mollified the rigour of the law by providing for a reduced
punishment for an offence punishable under s.16(1)(a). We are
however not concerned with other types of offences except the one
punishable under s.16(l)(a) and for this the maximum punishment
•.._/ provided was for a term of three years instead of six years. In s.16 c
"----·
I
of the Act for sub·s.(I), the following sub-section insofar as relevant
was introduced :

"(!)Subject to the ·provisions of sub-s.(IA), if any
person-
D
(a) whether by himself or by any other person on his be-
half, imports into India or manufactures for sale, or
stores, sells or distributes any article of food-

(i) which is adulterated within the meaning of sub·cl.(m) of
cl.(ia) of s.2 or misbranded within the meaning of cl. E
(ix) of that section or the sale of ·which is prohibited ·
under any provision of this Act or any rule made
thereunder or by an order of the Food (Health)
Authority;
F

he shall, in addition to the penalty to which he may be
liable under the provisions of s.6, be punishable with im-
'prisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months
but which may extend to three years, and with fine which
shall not be less than one thousand rupees."

A new proviso was inserted conferring power on the Court for
· any adeqW<te and special reasons io be mention~d in the judgment
to impose a reduced punishment for .a term which shall not be less H
than three months hut may extend to two years, with fine which
shall not be less than five hundred rupees.
914 SUPREME COIJRT REPORTS [1983) i s.c.it.

A As regards the procedure for trial of such offencs, the Act
,
introduced s.16A which is important for our purposes, a·nd it ....
reads:

"16A. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code ..
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, all offences under sub-section
B (1) of section 16 shall be tried in a summary way by a Judi-
cial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered in this
behalf by the State Government or by a Metropolitan
Magistrate and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both
inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as may be, apply
to such trial :
c Provided that in the case of any conviction in a
summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for 'the
Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term
not exceeding one year :

Provided further that when at the commencement of,
D or in the course of, a summary trial under this section, it
appears to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is
such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any other
reason, undesirable to iry the case summarily, the Magis-

E
trate shall after hearing the pa~tics record an order to that
effect and thereafter recall any witness who may have been .•
examine_d and proceed to bear or rehear the case in the
manner provided by the said Code."

There were some corresponding changes brought about in s.20 •
of the Act. Sub-s.(2) of s.20 provides :
F
"(2) No Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magis-
trate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try
any offence under this Act."
G
There is no doubt or difficulty as to the law applicable. Art.
25_4 of the Constitutio·n makes provision firstly, as to what would
or
happen in the case conflict between a Central . and State law with
regard to ihe subjects enumerated in the Concurrent List, and
H secondly, for resolving such 'conflict. Art. 254(1) enunciates the
normal rule that in the event of a conflict between a Uniou and a
State law in the concurrent field, the former prevails over the latter.
t. BARAi V. HENRY AH HOE (Sen, J.) 915

Clause (I) lays.down that if· a State law relating to a Concurrent A
subject is 'repugnant' to a Union law relating to that subject, then,
whether tbe Union law is prior ot later in time, the Union law will
prevail and the State law shall, to the extent of such repugnan~y, be
void. To the general rule laid down in clause (!), clause (2) engrafts
an exception, viz., that if the President assents to a State law which
has been reserved for his consideration, it will prevail notwithstand-
B
ing its repugnancy to.. an earlier law of the Union, both laws dealing
with a Concurrent subject. In such a case, the Central Act will give
way to the State Act only to the extent· of inconsistency between the
two, and no more. In short, the result of' obtaining the assent of the
President to a State Act which is inconsitent with a previous Uni.on
law relating to a Coricurrent subject would be that the State Act will
c
prevail in that State and override tlie provisions of the Central Act
in their applicability to that State only. The predominance of the
State law !llaY however J?e taken away if Parliament legislates under
the Proviso to clause (2). The. Proviso to Art.254(2) empowers the
Union Parliament to repeal or amend a· repugnant State law even D
though it has become valid by virtue of the President's assent.
Parliament may repeal or amend the repugnant State law, 'either'
directly, or by itself enacting a law repugnant to the State law with
respect to the 'same matter'. Even though the subsequent law made
by Parliament does not experssly repeal a State law, even then, the
State law will become void as soon as the subsequent law of Parlia- E
ment creating repugnancy is made. A State law would. be repugnant
to the Union law when there is direct conflict between the two laws ..
Such repugnancy may also arise where both laws operate in the same
field and the two · cann.ot possibly stand together e.g., where both
prescribe punishment for the ·same offe'!ce but the punishment .
differs in degree or kind or in the procedure prescribed. In all such F
cases, the law made by Parliament shall prevail ovef the State law
under Art.254(J ). That being so, when ·Parliament stepped· in and
enacted the Central Amendment · Act, it' being a later law made by
Parliament "with respect to the same matter", the West' Bengal
Amendment Act stood impliedly repealed!
G
The case of Zaverbai Amaidas v. The State of Bombay(')
illustrates the application of the Proviso to Art.254(2). The Essential
Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 was enacted by the Ce~tral
H
ni tt955J 1 s:c.R. 799.
916 SUPREME couar REPoRTS [1983] 1 s.c.R.
A Legislature, s. 7 of which provided for penalties for contravention of
orders made under s.3 of the Act. The provision with regard to the
'
penalties was that if any person c011travenes any order made under
s.3, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
""
extend to three years or with fine or with both. The then Province of
Bombay felt that the maximum punishment of three years, imprison-
B ment provided by s.7 of the Act was not adequate for offences under
the Act and with the object of enhancing _the punishment provided
therein, enacted Act 36 of 1947. By s.2 of that Act it was provided
that notwithstanding anything contained in the Essential Supplies
(Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, whoever contravenes an order made
c under s.3 of the Act shall be punishable for a term which may extend
to seven years but shall not, except for reasons to be recorded in
writing, be less than six months and_shall also be liable to fine. The
Bombay Act thus increased the sentence to imprisonment for seven
years and also made it obligatory to impose a sentence of fine, and
further provided for a minimum sentence of six months and the
D Couri was bound to impose a minimum sentence except for reasons
to be recorded in writing. The Act having been reserved for the
assent of the Governor-General and received his assent under •
s.107(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935, came into operation
in the Province of Bombay notwithstanding the repugnaocy. Subse-
quently, the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 under-
E went substantial alterations and was finally recast by the. Essential
Supplies (Temporary Powers) Amendment Act, I 950. The Amend-
ment. made in 1950 substituted a new section in place of s. 7 of the
Act. The sch_eme of the new section was that for purposes of punish-
meni, offences under the. Act were grouped under three categories
and the punishment to be imposed fo the several categories were
p separately specified. S. 7 was thus a comprehensive Code covering the
entire field of punishment for offences under the Act graded accord-
ing to the commodity and character of the offence~ It was _held by
this Court that the Bombay Act was impliedly repealed by s. 7 of the
Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Amendment Act, 1950.

G
It is strenuously argued on behalf of the appellant that s.16A
of the Act is not retrospective in operation, and that it does not deal
with procedure alone but touches a substantive right. The submission
is that in view of cls.(c), (d) and (e) of sub-s.(I) of s.8 of the Bengal
H General Clauses Act, 1$99 which provi<(e that if any law is repealed
then unless a differen( intention appears, the repeal shall not affect
aily liability incurred under any enactment so repealed or affect any
t. BARAi v. !lBNRY AH !lOB (Sen, J.) 911
legal proceeding or reiliedy in. respect of such liability, penalty or A'
punishment as aforesaid. It is said that there was a liability incurred
by the commission of an offence punishable under s.J6(1)(a) of the
Act as amended by the West Bengal Amendment Act and s:S of the
Bengal General Clauses Act' 1899 preserved .the C!)ntinued operation
of the repealed West Bengal Amendment Act for imposition of that
punishment. The contention is that,where rights and procedure are 8
dealt with together by the repealing Act, then, ·intention of the
legislature is that the old rights are still to be determined by the old .
procedure. Iii support of the ~ontention, reliance is placed on the
•
decision of the Sargant, J. in re Hale's Patent('). We· are afraid, the
contention cannot prevail. Just as a person accused of the commis-
sion of an offence bas no right to trial by a particular court or to a c
particular procedure, the prosecutor equally bas no right to insist
upon that the accused be .subjected to an enhanced punishment
under the repealed Act. The dictum of Sargant..J. in re Hale's Patent
is therefore not applicable.

Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences D
laid down in s.6 of the General Clauses Act though it has been speci-
fically mentioned in the repeaiing Act or not, will follow, unless, as
the section itself says, a different intention appears. Io State of Punjab
v. Mohar Singh('), this Court has elaborately dealt with the effect
of repeal. In the case of a simple, repeal there is scarcely any ro1)m
for expression of a contrary opinion. But when the repeal is followed E
.by fresh legislation on 'the same subject, the Court would undoub· •
tedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act, but only for the
purpose of determining whether they indii:ate a different intention.
"The' line of inquiry would be, riot whether the new Act expressly
keeps alive old rights and liabilities", in the words of Mukherjee,J,,
"but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them.'' The Court
F
held that it cannot subscribe to the broad proposition that s.6 of the
General Clauses Act is ruled out when there is repeal of an enact-
ment followe? by fresh legislation. S 6 would be applicable in such
cases also unless the liew legislation manifests an intention incJm·
patible with or contrary to the provisions of the section. Such incom- G
patibility would have to be ascertained from a consideration of all
the relevant provisions of the new Act and the mere absence' of a
saving clause is not by itself material. The Court therefore held that
the provisions of s.6 of the General Clauses Act will apply to a cas~
H
(I) L.R. (1920] Cb. 377.
(2) [1955] I SCR 823.
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1983] I S.C.R.

of repeal even if there is simultaneous enactment unless a contrary
intention can be gathered from the new enactment. Of course, the
consequences laid down in s.6 of the General. Clauses Act will apply
only when a statute or regulation having the force of a statute is
actually repealed. 1t has no application when ~ statute which is of a
temporary nature automatically expires by efflux of time. The
B principles laid down by the Court in Mohar Singh' s case (supra),' have
consistently been followed in subsequent cases. The old doctrine ~f
extinguishing or effacing the repealed law for all purposes ·and intents
except for the acts past and closed has now given way to the
prineiples enunciated by the Court in Mohar Singh's case, (supra).

c The question that falls for consideration in the appeal is whether
. a "contrary intention" appears from the provisons of the Central
Amendment Act so as to exclude the applicability of s.8 of the
Bengal General c;Iauses Act. Anil Kumar Sen,J. in B. Manna's case,
(supra), mentions several reasons why the Central Amendment Act
was not really intended to be retrospective in operation so that it
D would not cover cases of offences committed prior to the enactment
itself. In the first place, be observes that the Central Amendment
Act had not expressly repealed the West Bengal Amendment Act nor
dealt with the Act or any of its provisions in any manner. It was
enacted with reference and having regard to the provisions of the
Act as it stood before the Central · Amendment Act came into force.
·E
Even if the Central Amendment Act had not expressly repealed the
West Bengal Amendment Act, it would still be repealed by necessary
implication under Art. 254(1) as i.t conflicts with a later law with
respect to the same_ matter enacted by Parliament. ·

F Secondly, the learned Judge refers to the ·language of the /-
statute itself. He observes that unlike many other statutory pro-
visions creating similar offences and providing punishment therefor,
in the Act the material provisions are not in terms like "any person
guilty of an offence of manufacturing, storiog, selling or distributing
any article of food which is adulterated shall be pun,ishable with ... ".
G On the other hand, he points out that the terms of s. 16(l)(a) of
the Act are "if any person ......... manufactures fo_r sale, or stores, or
sells, or distributes any article of food which· is adulterated, he
shall ...... ". The learned Judge is of the vi~w that on the words
used and on ·cheir terms the only consistent implication is that such
..
H manufacture, storage, sale or distribution must be afcer the enact·
men! bas come into force and not prior thereto. In our view, nothing
T. BARAi v. HENRY AH HOE (Sen, J.) - 919

really turns on the language of s. 16(l)(a) because the Central A
Amendment Act has not created a new offence thereby but dealt
with the same offence as before.

Lastly, the learned Judge refers to the new offences created by
the Central Amendment Act, one of them being that under s. 16(1}(b)
of the Act with regard to manufacturing for sale, or storing, or
:selling, or distributing any adulterant which was, not in the Act at
any time ·before. Accordingly, he holds that it is not possible to
give retrospective effect to the other parts of the Act and observes
that it could never have been the intention of the Legislature nor
was it possible to give retrospective effect to the Act. According to -
c
him Art. 20(1) ·of -the Constitution stands in the way of giving
restrospective effe~t to s. 16(l)(b) of the Act and thus renders the
act which was otherwise innocent at the time when it· was done to
be an offence by later enactment. We are not concerned with new
offences created by the Central Amendment ~ct or with offences
for which an enhanced punishment is provided for and therefore
there is no question of Art. 20(1) of the Constitution being attracted.
We are here concerned wiih the same offence, namely, an offence
punishable under s. 16(1)(a) of the Act for which a reduced punish-
ment is provided for.
E

It is only retroactive criminal legislation that is prohibited
under Ait. 20(1). The prohibition contained in Art. 20(1) is that
no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation.of a
Jaw in force at the time of the commission· of the act charged as an
offence pmhibits nor shall he be ·subjected to a penalty greater F
than that which might have been inflicted· under the law in force at
tlie time of the commission of the offence. It is quite clear that
insofar as the Central Amendment Act· creates new offences or
enhances punishment for a particular type of offence no person can
be convicted ·by such ex post facto law nor can the enhanced punish-
G
ment prescribed by the amendment be appplicable. But insofar as
the Central Amendment Act reduces the punishment for an offence.
punishable under s. I 6(l)(a) of the Act, there is no reason wiiy the
·accused should not have the benefit of such reduced punishment.
The rule of beneficial construction requires that even ex post facto H
law of such a type should be applied to mitigate the rigour of the
law. The principle is based both on sound reason and common-
920 SUPREME COURT REPORT~ (1983) t s.c.11..

A sense. This finds support in the following passage from Graies orl
Statute Law, 7th edn. at pp. 387-88 :

"A retrospective statute is different from an ex post
facto statute. "Every ex post facto law ......... " said Chase
J. in the American case of Calder v. Bull(') "must
B necessarily be retrospective, but every retrospective law is
not an ex post facto law. Every law that takes away or
impairs rights vested agreeably to existing Jaws is retrospec-
tive, and is generally unjust and may be oppressive ; it is a
good general rule that a law should have no retrospect,
but in cases in which the laws may justly and for the
c benefit of the community and also of individuals relate to
a time antecedent to their commencement : as statutes. of
oblivion or of pardon. They are certainly retrospective,
and literally both concerning and after the facts committed.
But I do not consider any law ex post' facto within the •
prohibition that mollifies the rigour of the criminal law, but
D only those that create or aggravate the crime, or increase the
punishment or change the rules of evidence for the purpose
oj conviction ... There is a great and apparent. difference
between making ai: unlawful act lawful and the making
·an innocent action criminal and punishing it as a crime."

E To illustrate, if Parliament were to re-enact s. 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and provide that the punishment for an
offence of murder shall be sentence for imprisonment for life, idstead
nf the present sentence. ~f death or imprisonment for life, then it can-
not be that the Courts would still award a sentence of death even in
pending cases.
F
In Rattan Lal v. The State of Punjab('), the question that fell
. for consideration was whether an appellate court can extend the
benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 which had come into
force after the accused had been convicted of a criminal offence.
The court by majority of 2: I .'answered the question in the
G affirmative. Subba Rao, J. who delivered a majority opinion,
concluded that in considering the question, the rule of beneficial
construction required that even ex post facto law of the type involved
in that case should be applied to reduce. the punishment.
H
. (I) [1798] 3 Dallas (U.S.) 38b. 391.
(2) [1964] 7 SCR 676.
T. BARAi v. HENRY AH HOE (Sen, J.) 921

It is settled both on authority and· principle that when a later A
statute again describes an offence created by an earlier statute and
imposes a different punishment, or varies the· procedure, the earlier
statute is repealed by implication. In Michell v. Br.own(') Lord
Cambell put the matter thus :

"It is well settled rule of construction that, if a later
B
statute again describes an offence created by a former
statute and affixes a different punishment, varying the
procedure, the earlier statute is repealed by the later statute
See also Smith v. Benabo.f>

~-~ In Regina v. Youle,( 3 ) Martin, B. said in the oft-quoted passage:

"If a statute. deals with a particular class of offences,
and a subsequent Act is passed which deals with precisely
the same offences, and a·. different punishment is impo_sed
' by the later Act, I think . that, in effect, the legislature has 0
declared that the new Act shall be substituted for the e1.rlier
Act."

The rule is however subject to the limitation contained in Art. 20(1)
against ex post facto law providing for a greater punishment and
has also no application where the offence described in the later Act
is not the same as in the earlier Act i.e. when the essential ingredients E
of the two offences are different.

In the premises, the Central Amendment Act having dealt
with the same offence as the one punishable under s. 16(1)(a) and
provided for a reduced punishment, the accused must have the
benefit of the reduced punishment. We wish to make it clear that F
anything that we have said ·shall not be constroed as giving to the
Central Amendment Aci a retrospective operation insofar as it
.'
creates new offences or provides for an enhanced punishment.

In the result, the appeal must fail and is dismissed.
•
G

....
f
P.BR. Appeal dismissed.

<I' [1959] 120E.R. 909, 912. H
•2) [1937] I All. E.R. 523.
(3) [1861) 158 E.R. 311, 315-16.,