Can the term second offence be limited to repeat violations of the same nature in a case where a food processing unit faces separate convictions for storage breach and prohibited colour use?

Sources
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Case Analysis: Read case analysis

Suppose a small food‑processing unit that supplies ready‑to‑eat snacks to local retailers is investigated after a consumer complaint alleges that the snacks contain a synthetic colour that is prohibited under the Food Safety Act. The investigating agency registers an FIR alleging that the unit kept the snacks in an uncovered container, violating the provision that mandates hygienic storage, and that it later used the prohibited colour in a separate batch of the same product. The trial court convicts the accused for the first allegation, imposes a modest fine, and subsequently, in a separate proceeding, convicts the accused for the colour‑violation, imposing a harsher imprisonment term on the ground that the later conviction constitutes a “second offence” under the Act.

The prosecution’s case rests on the chronological sequence of the two convictions. The FIR for the storage breach was filed first, and the accused was sentenced after a summary trial. Several months later, a fresh complaint triggers a second investigation, leading to a charge that the accused coloured the snacks with a dye expressly banned by the Act. The accused was taken into custody, and the trial court, relying on the statutory language that prescribes a heavier penalty for a “second offence”, treated the colour‑violation as such, despite the fact that the conduct differed from the earlier storage breach.

The legal problem that emerges is the proper construction of the term “second offence” in the Food Safety Act. The accused contends that “second offence” should be limited to a repeat of the same kind of conduct – i.e., another instance of storing food in an uncovered container – and that the colour‑violation, being a distinct offence, should attract only the penalty applicable to a first offence. The prosecution, on the other hand, argues that the term is temporal, covering any subsequent conviction under the Act, regardless of the nature of the conduct, and that the legislative intent was to deter any recurrence of violations.

At the trial level, the accused’s ordinary factual defence – that the colour was added inadvertently or that the storage breach was a technical lapse – does not address the core statutory interpretation. Even if the factual allegations were successfully challenged, the penalty would still hinge on whether the later conviction qualifies as a “second offence”. Consequently, the defence must focus on the statutory construction rather than merely disputing the facts, making a purely factual defence insufficient to obtain relief.

Having exhausted the remedies available in the lower courts, the accused seeks to overturn the harsher sentence by filing a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appeal challenges the trial court’s interpretation of “second offence” and requests that the higher court adopt a narrower construction, limiting the term to repeat offences of the same nature. The appellate jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is appropriate because the conviction was rendered by a Sessions Court within its territorial jurisdiction, and the statutory provision at issue is a question of law that can be examined on appeal.

To navigate this complex procedural route, the accused engages a specialist lawyer in Chandigarh High Court who has extensive experience in food‑safety legislation and criminal‑procedure matters. The counsel prepares a detailed petition that sets out the statutory language, relevant precedents, and the purposive interpretation approach, arguing that the ordinary meaning of “second” in the context of the Act is temporal and not limited to identical conduct.

Simultaneously, a team of lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court drafts the appeal memorandum, highlighting that the trial court’s decision effectively expands the statutory penalty beyond the legislature’s intent. They cite comparative jurisprudence where “second offence” has been interpreted narrowly, emphasizing the principle of legal certainty and the need to avoid punitive escalation for unrelated violations.

The procedural remedy of a criminal appeal is the natural next step because the conviction and sentence have already been affirmed by the Sessions Court. An ordinary revision or a petition for quashing would not address the specific legal question of statutory construction, and a bail application would be futile given that the accused is already serving the sentence. Only a full‑scale appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court can re‑examine the legal interpretation and potentially recalibrate the penalty to that appropriate for a first offence.

In filing the appeal, the accused’s counsel invokes the principle that the High Court has the authority to interpret statutes and to ensure that the penal provisions are applied consistently with legislative purpose. The appeal seeks a declaration that the “second offence” provision does not automatically impose a higher penalty for any subsequent conviction, but only for a repeat of the same category of offence, thereby requesting the High Court to reduce the imprisonment term to the level prescribed for a first offence.

The outcome of the appeal will hinge on the High Court’s analysis of the statutory language, the legislative intent behind the Food Safety Act, and the comparative case law on the meaning of “second offence”. If the court adopts the accused’s construction, it will set a precedent that narrows the scope of the harsher penalty, ensuring that only repeat violations of the same nature attract the escalated punishment, while distinct offences will be treated independently.

Question: How should the term “second offence” be construed under the Food Safety Act when the alleged violations involve a storage breach in one case and the use of a prohibited synthetic colour in another, and what legal principles guide that construction?

Answer: The factual backdrop presents two distinct infractions: first, the accused kept ready‑to‑eat snacks in an uncovered container, violating the hygienic‑storage requirement; second, the accused allegedly incorporated a synthetic colour that the Food Safety Act expressly bans. The statutory provision that escalates the penalty for a “second offence” does not specify whether the offences must be of the same nature, leaving the courts to interpret the ordinary meaning of “second” in the legislative context. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would begin by examining the purposive approach, looking at the legislative intent to deter repeat violations of the Act as a whole rather than to punish identical conduct. The principle of ejusdem generis, while not directly applicable because the provision lists no examples, still informs the analysis by urging the court to read “second offence” in line with the overall objective of food‑safety enforcement, which is to protect public health through consistent compliance. Comparative jurisprudence, though not binding, shows that courts have sometimes limited “second offence” to repeat conduct, but have also upheld a broader temporal reading that any subsequent conviction triggers the heightened penalty. The accused’s counsel would argue that a narrow construction respects legal certainty and prevents disproportionate punishment for unrelated conduct, while the prosecution would contend that the temporal reading aligns with the Act’s deterrent purpose. The High Court, as the forum for the appeal, must balance these arguments, applying the doctrine of statutory construction that favors the ordinary meaning unless the legislature clearly intended otherwise. Ultimately, the interpretation will determine whether the colour‑violation qualifies as a “second offence” and thus whether the harsher imprisonment term is legally sustainable.

Question: What procedural remedies are available to the accused after the Sessions Court’s conviction for the colour‑violation, and why is a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court the appropriate next step?

Answer: After the Sessions Court imposed a heavier sentence on the basis that the colour‑violation constituted a “second offence”, the accused faces limited procedural options. A revision petition or a petition for quashing would not address the core legal question of statutory construction, and a bail application is moot because the accused is already serving the sentence. Consequently, the only avenue that directly challenges the legal basis of the conviction is a criminal appeal. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has jurisdiction over appeals from Sessions Courts within its territorial domain, making it the proper forum to review the legal interpretation of the “second offence” clause. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court would prepare an appeal memorandum that sets out the factual chronology, the statutory language, and relevant precedents, emphasizing that the trial court’s construction expands the penalty beyond legislative intent. The appeal must demonstrate that the error is a question of law, not merely a factual dispute, thereby satisfying the threshold for appellate review. By filing the appeal, the accused seeks a declaration that the later conviction should be treated as a first offence for penalty purposes, which would result in a reduction of the imprisonment term to the level prescribed for a first offence. The practical implication of a successful appeal includes immediate relief for the accused, a correction of the legal principle applied, and guidance for future prosecutions under the Food Safety Act. Moreover, the appellate process ensures that the higher judiciary can harmonise the interpretation of the statute, preserving the rule of law and preventing arbitrary escalation of punishments. Hence, a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court is the most effective procedural remedy to address the legal issue at stake.

Question: How does the accused’s factual defence that the prohibited colour was added inadvertently influence the legal debate over the “second offence” provision and the prospects for sentence mitigation?

Answer: The accused’s claim that the synthetic colour was introduced inadvertently constitutes a factual defence aimed at negating the culpability for the colour‑violation. While this argument may affect the determination of guilt on the specific charge, it does not directly resolve the statutory question of whether the offence qualifies as a “second offence”. A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court would argue that even if the colour was added unintentionally, the conduct still falls within the prohibited act defined by the Food Safety Act, and the statutory penalty is triggered by the act itself, not by the mental state. However, the defence can be leveraged to seek a lesser sentence under the principle of proportionality, urging the court to consider mitigating circumstances such as lack of intent, absence of prior warnings, and the technical nature of the lapse. The prosecution, on the other hand, will maintain that the statutory language imposes a mandatory higher penalty for any subsequent conviction, irrespective of intent. The High Court’s assessment will therefore involve two layers: first, whether the factual defence defeats the charge, and second, whether the “second offence” construction mandates the harsher punishment. If the court finds the colour‑violation proved despite the claim of inadvertence, the focus returns to the statutory interpretation. Conversely, if the court accepts the defence and acquits on the colour charge, the “second offence” issue becomes moot, and the accused retains only the penalty for the storage breach. In practice, the factual defence can be a strategic tool to negotiate a sentence reduction, but it does not substitute for a proper construction of the “second offence” provision, which remains the decisive factor for the appeal’s success.

Question: What would be the broader implications for food‑safety enforcement and future prosecutions if the Punjab and Haryana High Court adopts a narrow construction of “second offence” limiting it to repeat violations of the same nature?

Answer: A narrow construction that confines “second offence” to repeat violations of the identical conduct would reshape the punitive landscape of the Food Safety Act. Under such an interpretation, the accused’s later conviction for using a prohibited colour would be treated as a first offence, resulting in a reduced penalty and setting a precedent that distinct infractions are punished independently. Lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court would highlight that this approach promotes legal certainty, ensuring that businesses can anticipate the consequences of each specific breach without fear of cumulative escalation for unrelated violations. The practical impact on enforcement would be twofold: regulators would need to tailor their prosecutions to the nature of each breach, and they could no longer rely on the “second offence” clause to impose harsher sentences for any subsequent violation. This could encourage more precise compliance programs, as firms would focus on rectifying each specific deficiency rather than fearing an automatic penalty increase. Conversely, the prosecution might argue that the broader deterrent purpose of the Act would be weakened, potentially leading to a rise in disparate violations if offenders perceive the penalty matrix as fragmented. Nonetheless, the High Court’s decision would provide authoritative guidance, influencing how lower courts interpret the statute and how investigating agencies draft charges. For the accused, a narrow construction offers a clear pathway to sentence mitigation, while for the complainant and public health advocates, it ensures that punishment remains proportionate to the specific harm caused. Ultimately, the High Court’s ruling would balance the need for deterrence with the principle of proportionality, shaping the future trajectory of food‑safety jurisprudence.

Question: Why is the Punjab and Haryana High Court the appropriate forum for an appeal challenging the interpretation of “second offence” in the Food Safety Act, given the facts of the case?

Answer: The appellate jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is triggered because the conviction and sentence were handed down by a Sessions Court that lies within its territorial jurisdiction. Under the constitutional scheme, a High Court possesses the power to hear criminal appeals from any subordinate court situated in its area, and the matter at hand is a question of law – the construction of the term “second offence” in the Food Safety Act – which is precisely the type of issue that a High Court is empowered to resolve. The factual matrix shows that the accused was first convicted for a storage breach and later for the use of a prohibited colour, with the trial judge treating the latter as a “second offence” and imposing a harsher penalty. This legal interpretation is not a matter of factual dispute; it is a pure question of statutory meaning that can be examined on appeal without the need for a fresh evidentiary hearing. Moreover, the High Court’s authority to interpret statutes ensures uniformity and consistency across the state, preventing divergent applications of the same provision by lower courts. The accused therefore files the appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to obtain a declaration that the statutory phrase should be read narrowly, limiting “second offence” to repeat conduct of the same nature. A specialist lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court, familiar with both food‑safety legislation and criminal‑procedure jurisprudence, can frame the arguments on purposive interpretation, comparative case law, and the principle of legal certainty. By invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction, the appellant seeks a definitive pronouncement that will bind the trial court and any future tribunals, thereby correcting the alleged mis‑application of the penalty provision and potentially reducing the imprisonment term to that appropriate for a first offence.

Question: How does the procedural route from the Sessions Court conviction to a criminal appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court differ from a revision or a petition for quashing, and why is the appeal the correct remedy?

Answer: A criminal appeal, unlike a revision or a petition for quashing, is a substantive challenge to the correctness of the conviction and the legal reasoning that underpins the sentence. In the present scenario, the accused has already exhausted the ordinary remedies of the lower courts; the conviction for the colour‑violation was affirmed by the Sessions Court, and the factual defence has been fully litigated. A revision under the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is limited to jurisdictional errors, excess of jurisdiction, or procedural irregularities, none of which are present because the trial court correctly exercised its jurisdiction and followed procedural rules. A petition for quashing, on the other hand, is appropriate when the prosecution has failed to disclose a charge sheet, when the FIR is mala fide, or when there is a fundamental defect in the criminal proceeding. Here, the FIR is valid, the charge sheet was filed, and the trial proceeded regularly; the dispute centres on the statutory construction of “second offence”. Consequently, only a criminal appeal can address the substantive legal question and seek a re‑evaluation of the penalty. The appeal allows the accused to argue that the higher court should reinterpret the provision, thereby potentially altering the sentence. The procedural steps involve filing a notice of appeal within the prescribed period, preparing a memorandum of appeal that sets out the legal issues, and serving the notice on the prosecution. The appellant’s counsel, a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court with experience in appellate practice, will draft the appeal to emphasize that the trial court’s interpretation expands the statutory penalty beyond legislative intent. By pursuing the appeal, the accused targets the precise point of error – the legal meaning of “second offence” – which cannot be remedied by a revision or a quashing petition.

Question: In what ways does the factual defence concerning inadvertent use of the prohibited colour fail to address the core legal issue at the appellate stage, and what arguments should the accused’s counsel focus on?

Answer: The factual defence that the prohibited colour was added inadvertently attacks the elements of the offence, namely the mens rea and the actus reus, and is therefore appropriate at trial where the prosecution must prove the conduct. However, at the appellate stage the factual matrix is already settled; the trial court has accepted the evidence and convicted the accused on the basis of the established facts. The remaining controversy is the legal classification of the later conviction as a “second offence” and the consequent escalation of the penalty. Because the appellate court reviews the trial court’s legal conclusions, a purely factual argument about inadvertence does not alter the statutory interpretation. Consequently, counsel must shift focus to the construction of the statutory phrase. The arguments should centre on the ordinary meaning of “second” as temporal, the legislative purpose of the Food Safety Act to deter repeated violations, and the principle that harsher penalties should be reserved for repeat conduct of the same nature to preserve proportionality. Counsel can cite comparative jurisprudence where courts have limited “second offence” to identical conduct, stressing that expanding the term to any subsequent offence undermines legal certainty and leads to arbitrary punishment. Additionally, the counsel may invoke the doctrine of ejusdem generis, arguing that the provision’s language, when read with the surrounding sections, indicates a narrow scope. The appeal should also highlight that the penalty hierarchy was designed to encourage compliance with specific standards, not to impose cumulative punishment for unrelated breaches. By framing the argument around statutory interpretation, purposive construction, and the need for consistent application, the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court can persuade the bench that the trial court erred in treating the colour‑violation as a “second offence”, thereby justifying a reduction of the sentence to that applicable to a first offence.

Question: What practical steps should the accused take in engaging counsel, filing the appeal, and preparing for the hearing before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, including considerations for locating a suitable lawyer in Chandigarh High Court?

Answer: The first practical step is to identify a competent lawyer in Chandigarh High Court who possesses a track record in criminal appeals and familiarity with food‑safety statutes. The accused can consult the Bar Association’s directory, seek referrals from peers in the food‑processing sector, or approach legal aid clinics that maintain a list of experienced practitioners. Once retained, the counsel will conduct a detailed review of the trial record, the FIR, charge sheets, and the judgment to extract the precise points of legal error. The next step is to prepare a notice of appeal within the statutory limitation period, ensuring that the document complies with the High Court’s formatting rules and includes a concise statement of the grounds of appeal – namely, the erroneous construction of “second offence”. The appeal memorandum, drafted by lawyers in Chandigarh High Court in collaboration with lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court, must set out the factual background, the legal issue, and the authorities supporting a narrow interpretation. It should also attach certified copies of the judgment, the FIR, and any relevant evidence. After filing, the counsel must serve the notice on the prosecution and the State, and file an affidavit of service. Parallel to filing, the accused should arrange for bail if the appeal may result in a stay of execution of the sentence; however, given that the accused is already serving the term, the focus will be on securing a stay of the harsher portion of the sentence pending the appeal. Preparation for the hearing involves drafting oral submissions, anticipating counter‑arguments from the prosecution, and rehearsing the articulation of statutory construction principles. The counsel may also file a supporting affidavit or a supplemental memorandum if new legal precedents emerge before the hearing date. Throughout, the accused should maintain regular communication with the lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court to monitor procedural deadlines, ensure that all court fees are paid, and keep the case file organized. By following these steps, the accused maximizes the chance that the High Court will grant a hearing, consider the legal arguments, and potentially modify the sentence in line with the correct interpretation of the “second offence” provision.

Question: How should the defence evaluate the procedural history of the two convictions to identify any defects that could support a quashing of the harsher sentence on appeal?

Answer: The first step for a lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court is to reconstruct the complete procedural timeline from the registration of the initial FIR for the storage breach through the summary trial, the issuance of the conviction and fine, and the later investigation that led to the second FIR concerning the prohibited colour. This reconstruction must include the original charge sheet, the summary trial order, the sentencing order, the notice of appeal (if any) filed after the first conviction, and the subsequent charge sheet and trial record for the colour‑violation. A careful review may reveal whether the accused was afforded a proper opportunity to contest the second charge, whether the second trial observed the mandatory period for filing a charge sheet, and whether the court correctly applied the principle of separate offences under the Food Safety Act. If the prosecution failed to disclose the laboratory report on the dye before the trial, or if the defence was denied a chance to cross‑examine the expert, such omissions could constitute a procedural defect. Moreover, the appellate counsel must verify that the trial court correctly recorded the conviction as a “second offence” and that the sentencing order reflects the statutory penalty hierarchy. Any discrepancy between the statutory language and the court’s interpretation, especially if the court treated distinct conduct as a repeat of the same offence without explicit legislative guidance, may provide a ground for a legal error claim. The defence should also examine whether the appellate jurisdiction was properly invoked, ensuring that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period after the conviction. By mapping these procedural elements, the counsel can pinpoint specific lapses—such as failure to grant a fair hearing, non‑compliance with filing deadlines, or misapplication of the statutory construction—that a lawyer in Chandigarh High Court could argue merit a quashing of the enhanced imprisonment.

Question: What evidentiary challenges can be raised against the prosecution’s scientific proof of the prohibited colour, and how might the defence secure a more favourable factual record?

Answer: A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court must first obtain the original laboratory report that identified the synthetic dye, the chain‑of‑custody documentation for the seized snack samples, and any expert affidavits that underpinned the prosecution’s claim. The defence can scrutinise the methodology employed—whether the test adhered to recognised standards, whether the sample was representative of the batch, and whether any contamination could have occurred during collection or storage. If the report lacks a clear statement of the detection limit, or if the expert did not appear in court for cross‑examination, the defence can move to exclude the report on the ground of non‑compliance with the rules of evidence. Additionally, the accused may introduce independent expert testimony to challenge the identification of the dye, perhaps by demonstrating that the colour could arise from permissible natural additives. The defence should also examine the storage breach evidence; photographs, inspection reports, and the statements of the complainant may be used to argue that the alleged colour was introduced after the storage incident, thereby breaking any causal link. By filing a detailed application for re‑examination of the samples, the defence can create a factual dispute that shifts the burden to the prosecution to prove the presence of the prohibited dye beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the counsel can request the court to order a fresh analysis under a controlled environment, citing the risk of laboratory error. These evidentiary strategies, when presented by lawyers in Chandigarh High Court, aim to erode the prosecution’s scientific foundation, potentially leading the appellate bench to view the conviction as unsafe and to reduce or set aside the harsher sentence.

Question: Considering the accused is already serving the imprisonment, what options exist to mitigate custody risks during the appeal, and what procedural steps must be taken?

Answer: The immediate concern for the defence is to prevent the continuation of the harsher imprisonment while the appeal is pending. A lawyer in Punjab and Haryana High Court can file an application for a stay of the sentence under the appropriate provision of the criminal procedure code, arguing that the appeal raises a substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of “second offence”. The application must be supported by a copy of the appeal memorandum, a summary of the alleged legal error, and an affidavit demonstrating that the accused’s liberty is being unduly affected pending resolution. The counsel should also explore the possibility of seeking remission under the prison rules, citing the pending appeal and the fact that the conviction for the colour‑violation may be set aside. If the court is reluctant to grant a full stay, a partial stay—such as suspension of the imprisonment term while the fine remains payable—may be pursued. Additionally, the defence can request the prison authorities to consider the accused for house arrest or a bail‑like arrangement, emphasizing that the appeal is not a challenge to the factual guilt but to the statutory construction. The application must be filed promptly, within the timeframe prescribed for filing a stay, and served on the prosecution. The court will then decide whether the balance of convenience favours the accused, taking into account the seriousness of the alleged offence and the likelihood of success on the appeal. By securing a stay, the defence not only protects the accused from further custodial hardship but also preserves the status quo, allowing the appellate judges to consider the legal arguments without the pressure of ongoing imprisonment.

Question: How can the defence craft a persuasive statutory‑construction argument that “second offence” should be limited to repeat conduct of the same nature, and what precedents or interpretative tools should be employed?

Answer: The defence’s primary task for the lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court is to develop a doctrinally sound construction of the phrase “second offence” that aligns with the ordinary meaning of “second” as a repeat of the same conduct. This involves citing dictionaries that define “second” in the sense of “following in order, succeeding”, and emphasizing that in penal statutes, the term traditionally refers to a subsequent commission of the identical offence. The counsel should also invoke the principle of legal certainty, arguing that expanding the penalty to unrelated offences would contravene the rule that punishments must be predictable. Comparative jurisprudence from other jurisdictions where courts have interpreted similar language narrowly can be introduced, illustrating that the legislative intent is to deter habitual offenders, not to impose cumulative penalties for disparate violations. The defence may also rely on the purposive approach, analysing the legislative history of the Food Safety Act, including parliamentary debates that reveal an intention to impose escalated penalties for repeat breaches of the same safety standard. Moreover, the counsel can point to the doctrine of ejusdem generis, arguing that the term “second offence” should be read in the context of the surrounding provisions that list escalating penalties for “first”, “second”, “third” offences, implying a continuum of identical conduct. By weaving these interpretative tools into the appeal memorandum, the lawyers in Chandigarh High Court can persuade the bench that the trial court’s broader reading stretches the statutory language beyond its plain meaning, thereby warranting a reduction of the sentence to that appropriate for a first offence.

Question: What documentary checklist and filing timeline should the defence observe to ensure compliance with appellate rules and avoid procedural default that could jeopardise the appeal?

Answer: A lawyer in Chandigarh High Court must begin by assembling a comprehensive docket that includes the original FIRs for both the storage breach and the colour‑violation, the respective charge sheets, the summary‑trial order and sentencing order for the first conviction, the full trial record and judgment for the second conviction, and any interim orders such as bail or remission applications. Copies of the laboratory report, expert affidavits, and the prosecution’s evidentiary list should also be collated. The defence should obtain certified copies of the appellate notice filed after the second conviction, along with the court’s acknowledgment of receipt. Once the documentary base is complete, the counsel must verify the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which typically runs from the date of the conviction or sentencing. The appeal memorandum must be drafted, signed, and verified within this window, and a copy must be served on the prosecution. The filing must be accompanied by the requisite court fee, a certified true copy of the judgment, and a concise statement of the grounds of appeal, focusing on the legal error in interpreting “second offence”. After filing, the defence should promptly file a request for a stay of the sentence, attaching the appeal copy. The counsel must also monitor any requisition for records by the court and be prepared to submit additional documents, such as the legislative history of the Food Safety Act, within the stipulated time. By adhering to this checklist and respecting each deadline—appeal filing, stay application, and any subsequent hearing notices—the lawyers in Punjab and Haryana High Court can safeguard the appeal from dismissal on technical grounds and preserve the opportunity to argue the substantive statutory‑construction issue.