IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.
M/s. SAJ Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Sk. Firdos Ur Rahaman – Respondent
C.R.R. 1652 of 2013
Decided On : 12-03-2024
Criminal Revisional Application - West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972 - Sections 34(5) and 34(7) - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, directors of a company, were accused of violating Section 17A of the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972. They argued that the Act did not apply to their business of manufacturing biscuits and bakery products.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the prayer for stay of further proceedings, stating that the trial court was justified in proceeding with the case in the absence of an order from the High Court to stay the proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners' business fell under the purview of the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the trial court should proceed with the case unless an order from the High Court grants a stay of further proceedings.
Final Decision: The criminal revisional application was dismissed, and the court directed the Registrar General to circulate the order to all judges of the District Judiciary in West Bengal for information.
JUDGMENT :
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.
1. This instant criminal revisional application is preferred against an order dated 01.04.2013 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court at Howrah rejecting the prayer for stay of all further proceedings of Complaint Case No. 28C of 2012 (T.R. No. 31 of 2012) under Sections 34(5) and 34(7) of the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972 for violation of Section 17A of the said Act.
2. The Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted as follows:
i. Petitioners No. 2 to 5 had been the Directors of M/s SAJ Industries Pvt. Ltd., a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Purna Bhavan, 5/1, Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata – 700020 which merged with M/s SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. in terms of an order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in Company Petition No. 529 of 2010 connected with Company Application No. 810 of 2010. Petitioner no. 6 had been the Chairman of M/s SAJ Industries Ltd. which merged with M/s SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 had been the Joint Managing Directors & petitioners No. 4 and 5 had been the directors of M/s SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd.
ii. M/s SAJ Industries Pvt. Ltd. had been engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling of biscuits and bakery products from its factory/manufacturing unit at Moheshpur, Uluberia, Birshibpur, District – Howrah.
iii. For the purpose of manufacturing biscuits and bakery products, the petitioners procured processed raw materials like flour, sugar, skimmed milk, edible oil, cashew, nut, spice etc. from various suppliers across the State of West Bengal as well as from other States. Using these raw materials, petitioners manufactured new and distinct articles with a separate name, character, use and marketable individuality entirely changed in form, contour, physical appearance and chemical combination.
iv. The aforesaid materials were thereafter used in manufacture of a different kind of ‘product’, namely, “biscuits and bakery products” where the “materials” used in its manufacture lost its identity. This “biscuits and bakery product” was a different commercial commodity of its own, capable of being sold in the market with its own identity.
v. The petitioners procured raw materials, some of which were ‘agricultural produce’ not for the purpose of dealing with the same in the market as such. The petitioners procured the materials and assorted it in appropriate combination for manufacturing biscuits and other bakery products which were not ‘agricultural produce’. The said ‘biscuits and bakery products’ were not ‘agricultural’ within the meaning of the said Act. Section 13 of the said Act dealing with licenses required to be gleaned by them who undertook the activities referred to therein for trading purpose and not for manufacturing purpose. A manufacturer procuring raw materials, some of which were ‘agricultural produce’ could not have come within the purview of the said Act. Both the purpose and the end product should be within the purview of the said Act to create a liability.
vi. The West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972 had been enacted “to provide for the regulation of marketing of agricultural produce in West Bengal; whereas it is expedient to provide for the regulation of marketing of agricultural produce in West Bengal and for matters connected”.
vii. The provisions of the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972 enacted the liability of submitting fortnightly returns to the Regulated Market Committee and paying of market fee to such Market Committee as envisaged in Section 17 and 17A of the said Act, which did not and could not apply in respect of the petitioners as they were in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling of biscuits and bakery products which in no way could be equated with the ‘agricultural produce’ as defined in Se
Ajit Kumar Palit v. State of West Bengal
Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra
AI
Industrial concerns are not liable to pay market fees on agricultural produce brought into the market area for processing and manufacturing under section 28 of the Act, 1963, provided that they have ....
The court emphasized the compliance with the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and the Rules, and discussed the applicability of the FSS Act, highlighting the imposition of....
The main legal point established is the discretion of the authorities in considering license renewals and the necessity of prior notification for shifting market areas under the West Bengal Agricultu....
The absence of importer information on a carbonated drink label does not amount to misbranding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, especially where a valid trade agreement between In....
The complaint was not maintainable without the company being made a party to the proceedings, and the direction to investigate the matter after receiving the complaint was in violation of Sec. 202 of....
Manufacturers of cotton yarn are not liable to register or pay market fees under agricultural produce legislation, as cotton yarn is recognized as a distinct manufactured product.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.