PRAKASH NARAIN, J. - (1.) Criminal appeal No. 181 of 1971 has been laid before us on a reference being made by two of us (Prakash Narain and S. Ranganathan, JJ.) to a larger bench on account of what appears to be a conflict in law enunciated by different bench decisions of this Court. Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1971 has been laid before us because an identical point arises in that case also.
(2.) The question which arises for determination is whether amendment of a rule of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, would affect a pending prosecution under the Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1954, and whether such a rule is to be given retrospective effect. The precise rule which is to be considered is Rule 29(e) of the said Rules as amended by Notification No. S. R. O. 2755 dated November 24, 1956. The relevant part of the rule reads as under : "29. Use of permitted coal tar dyes prohibited. Use of permitted coal tar dyes in or upon any food other than those enumerated below is prohibited " CHARANJIT LAL Underneath are mentioned various articles of food. It is the common case of the parties that coloured 'papars' prepared from sago in Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1971 and coloured 'Phoolwari' in Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1971 were not items of human consumption which were enumerated in Rule 29(e) on the date when the samples were taken from the respondent or when he was prosecuted or during the course of the prosecution. Use of permitted coal tar dye in or upon 'papars' and 'Phoolwari' was permitted by an amendment of Rule 29(e) subsequently. It is not in dispute that this amendment had not come into force even at the time when the trial Court delivered its judgments acquitting the respondent but it was wellknown at that time that this amendment was likely to be made. The trial Court was persuaded to keep in view the proposed amendment and acquite the respondent.
(3.) At the hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 181 of 1971 before two of us the appellant had relied on a decision of a bench of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Another v. Ail Dass, I.L.R. 1975(11) Delhi 346(1) which construing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Lubhaya v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, 1974 F.A.C. 102(2), had held that retrospective effect to standards changed during the pendecy of the trial crupendency of an appeal cannot be given. On behalf of the respondents reliance was placed on two bench decisions of this court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mai Ram, 1974 Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 19(3), Sunder Lal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1974 Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 21(4) and as Shyam Lal v. State, AIR 1968 Allahabad 392(5), in which it had been held that if during the pendecy of the proceedings in the High Court or the trial Court standards applicable as to the purity of an article of food are changed, then the substituted standards take the place of the old standards and must be given retrospective effect. As noticed by us earlier, da account of this conflicting views expressed by different benches of this court the matter wa's referred to a larger bench to resolve the conflict and lay down the correct law.;