Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

M/S A.K. Sarkar & Co. & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 186Decided 7 Mar 2024
Not available
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia · Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Background

In 2000, a food inspector took samples of sugar-boiled confectionery from a Calcutta shop run by the appellants. Lab tests showed the food itself was not adulterated, but the packets lacked required labelling details (manufacturer's address and date of manufacture), violating the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. The Trial Court convicted the shop's partner (6 months' imprisonment plus fine) and the firm (fine only); the conviction was upheld through the appellate and revisional courts, with the sentence reduced to 3 months on revision.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the wrong rule had been applied, confirming that the labelling rules in force in 2000 were correctly invoked, and upheld the concurrent findings of misbranding. However, it invoked Article 20(1) of the Constitution and the principle that an accused is entitled to a reduced punishment if the law is later amended to prescribe a lesser penalty (the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was replaced by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which only prescribes a monetary penalty for misbranding, not imprisonment). Relying on its earlier rulings in T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe, Nemi Chand v. State of Rajasthan, and Trilok Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court converted the partner's sentence of imprisonment to a fine of Rs. 50,000, while upholding the firm's fine of Rs. 2,000. The appeal was partly allowed.

Lesson Learnt

If a criminal law is amended after an offence is committed but before the case concludes, and the amendment reduces the punishment, courts can apply that more lenient punishment to the accused: the constitutional bar on retrospective criminal laws (Article 20(1)) only prevents harsher, not softer, treatment.

M/S A.K. Sarkar & Co. & Anr. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware