As per case facts, the Petitioner was convicted for operating a unit without consent and discharging untreated trade effluent into public sewers, violating the Water Act and Supreme Court directions ... on Yamuna pollution. The Trial Court convicted the Petitioner, leading to multiple appeals where the conviction was upheld but the imprisonment term was reduced. The Petitioner challenged these judgments, arguing that a subsequent beneficial amendment to the Water Act removed imprisonment and introduced only monetary penalties, which should be applied retrospectively to his case. The question arose whether the Petitioner, convicted of pollution offenses, was entitled to the benefit of a later statutory amendment that replaced imprisonment with monetary penalties. Finally, the Court upheld the Petitioner's conviction but, considering the beneficial amendment, his age, the prolonged trial, and deposited fine, set aside the imprisonment. Instead, it directed him to pay an additional substantial monetary penalty and undertake environmental restorative measures, balancing deterrence with the amended law's intent.