The Answer to Above Question lies straightforwardly in this case.
Repeal and savings:
Section 97 of FSSA, 2006 Act and section 358 are almost pari materia to each other.
The facts of the case involves an adulteration of food in 1989 and the trial went under 1954 act but later on 2006 new act replaced another came with a reduction of penalty with only fine and no imprisonment.
Arguments: Adv. Manu singhvi too relied on T barai v. henry ah hoe judgment
Issue: whether benefit of new act will be given?
Held: No
Ratio Paragraph ¶ 13:
Court held that in T barai case it was an amendment in that same act not a complete repeal and enactment.
Moreover there is as per section 6 of general clauses act and 97 of that 2006 act expressly saves the punishment under old law.
Same can be applied under IPC and BNS
One repealed another and all things done and continued unde rold law is saved by savings clause.
What about Rattan lal v. State of Punjab, probation of offenders act was a different subject law as well as a beneficial legislation.
What about section 479 BNSS? 1/2 half in CrPC and 1/3rd in BNSS?
Why benefit was given to undertrials in the landmark case of
Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services,
2024 even though we have section 531 BNSS which says pending trial (for undertrials) will be continued as if sanhita as not come into force.#Discernible_Topics@CurrentLegalGK