LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Manik Hiru Jhangiani vs State of M.P.

Criminal Appeal · 2023 INSC 1078Decided 14 Dec 2023
Criminal Appeal No. 3864 of 2023
Abhay S. Oka · Sanjay Karol

Background

The appellant was a director of a retail company ("Easy Day") whose Indore store was found selling biscuit packets that a Food Inspector alleged were mislabelled ("misbranded") under the old Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA) of 1954. The alleged violation occurred on 29 November 2010, after the newer Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006 had already brought some of its provisions into force (including its penalty clause for misbranding) but before the PFA itself was formally repealed in August 2011. The company director was prosecuted and the High Court refused to quash the case, so he appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court found that on the date of the alleged offence, both the older PFA (which allowed imprisonment for misbranding) and the newer FSSA's penalty provision (a monetary fine only, no jail) were simultaneously in force, creating a direct conflict for the same conduct. Punishing someone under both laws for the same act would amount to double jeopardy, prohibited under Article 20(2) of the Constitution. The Court held that Section 89 of the FSSA gives that Act an overriding effect over any inconsistent older food law, so once the FSSA's penalty provision (Section 52) was in force, it displaced the PFA's harsher criminal penalty for misbranding, meaning the accused could only be proceeded against under the FSSA's monetary-penalty route, not criminally prosecuted under the PFA. The High Court had wrongly found no inconsistency between the two laws, so the Supreme Court set aside its order and quashed the criminal proceedings, while leaving open the possibility of penalty proceedings under the FSSA.

Lesson Learnt

When two laws impose different penalties for the same conduct during a transition period between an old law and its replacement, the newer law's overriding clause controls: a person cannot be criminally prosecuted under a repealed-in-spirit law once a newer, overriding statute has already brought its own (even if lighter) penalty for the same act into force.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case