Biscuit maker prosecuted for not filing market-committee returns and fees
The Howrah market committee assessed a biscuit manufacturer Rs 50 lakh for not filing fortnightly returns and paying market fees on purchased flour, sugar and oils. It filed Complaint Case No. 29C of 2012 under the APMC Regulation Act. The Calcutta High Court on 12 March 2024 refused to quash the case, so prosecution continues.
This page records what the cited court, tribunal and government records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The revisional application was dismissed, so the magistrate-court prosecution under Sections 34(5) and 34(7) for violation of Section 17A continues toward trial.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the manufacturer held RMC licence No. 2820/60 as a purchaser of flour, sugar, vanaspati and others from 08.11.2007, renewed for successive years, and was asked to file fortnightly returns under Section 17A on purchased notified commodities.
The High Court recorded that the firm contended biscuits are not agricultural produce, its turnover is in biscuits, suppliers had already paid market fees, and double collection was barred, while the committee held licensed purchasers must file returns and pay fees on purchases.
The High Court recorded that after hearings the committee made a suo-motu assessment of about Rs 50,00,000 for 08/11/2007 to 23/08/2011 and then filed Complaint Case No. 29 of 2012 under Sections 34(5) and 34(7) for violation of Section 17A, in which cognizance was taken on 16.01.2012.
The High Court held that whether the firm is a manufacturer beyond the Act or a licensed trader liable for fees and returns, and contradictions about purchases, require trial evidence and cannot be decided under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
No harm to any person, adulteration, or victim was alleged; the case is solely about licence-returns paperwork and market-fee demands on raw-material purchases.
What the record says
“In view of the above discussions, the instant criminal revisional application is dismissed.”
[name withheld] Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs [name withheld], Calcutta High Court, C.R.R. 1653 of 2013, judgment dated 12.03.2024, para 75 — read the full text
A peaceful economic act
Making and selling biscuits harmed no one; the state prosecuted the business only for missing market-committee returns and fee paperwork on inputs bought for manufacture.
What we could not confirm
Searched 2024-2025 West Bengal trade-licence, shop-sealed, street-vendor and APMC cases; the only fully documented victimless licence-permit prosecution found with an official judgment is this March 2024 APMC case. No 2025-2026 qualifying business case with an official source was located.