2005 PLP 2127 (YLR)
THE STATE through Additional Advocate-General, Sindh — Appellant Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PINGRIO SUGAR MILLS and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 2127 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | S. Ali Aslam Jafri, J |
| Parties | THE STATE through Additional Advocate-General, Sindh — Appellant Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PINGRIO SUGAR MILLS and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 2127 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 2127 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: S. Ali Aslam Jafri, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 2127 (YLR) (THE STATE through Additional Advocate-General, Sindh — Appellant Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PINGRIO SUGAR MILLS and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 25th January, 2005.
- THE STATE through Additional Advocate-General, Sindh---Appellant
- Rasheed Qureshi Assistant Advocate-General.
- This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the State by learned Additional Advocate-General to assail the order of dismissal of a Direct Complaint under section 247, Cr.P.C. by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Tando Bago and the order of dismissal of the revision filed against the said order by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin Sindh.
- Mr. Rasheed Qureshi learned Assistant-Advocate General has argued that Direct Complaint could not be dismissed in absence of the complainant hence the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and as such the learned Additional Sessions Judge also erred in law while dismissing the revision application. In support of his contentions, he referred to case of Zahoor v. Said-ul-Ibrar 2003 SCMR 59 which relates to the offences which are either cognizable or non-compoundable which is not the case here. Section 22 of the Act is in itself very clear on the point and leaves no room for any doubt. It shall be beneficial to reproduce the same hereinafter:--
- I have given due consideration to the arguments of learned Assistant Advocate-General and the case-law cited by him which is not applicable at all in view of the above-cited provisions of law which clearly show that offences under the Sugar Factories Control Act are non-cognizable and compoundable in nature.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 561-A, 247 & 439
Sugar Factories Control Act (XXII of 1950), Ss. 2(h), 8, 21(a) & 22
Quashing of orders
Application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. had been filed on behalf of State to assail order of dismissal of direct complaint under S.247, Cr.P.C. and order of dismissal of revision filed against said order
Direct complaint for violation of provisions of S.8 read with S.2(h) of Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950 which was punishable under S.21(a) of said Act was filed by Cane Commissioner stating therein that despite direction to start crushing of Sugar Cane on a date fixed by the Authority, Sugar Mill had failed to comply with said direction
State contended that Direct Complaint could not be dismissed in absence of complainant and that impugned order was illegal on the face of it and Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in law while dismissing revision application
After dismissal of revision application, powers under S. 561-A, Cr. P. C. were to be used sparingly and only when there appeared to be abuse of process of law or when it was necessary to prevent ends of justice from being defeated, which was not the case here
Application was dismissed, in circumstances. Zahoor v. Said-ul-Ibrar 2003 SCMR 59 ref. Rasheed Qureshi Assistant Advocate-General.
Judgment & Decree
This Criminal Miscellaneous Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the State by learned Additional Advocate-General to assail the order of dismissal of a Direct Complaint under section 247, Cr.P.C. by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Tando Bago and the order of dismissal of the revision filed against the said order by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Badin Sindh. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application appear to be that a Direct Complaint for violation of the provisions of section 8 read with section 2(h) of the Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950 which is punishable under section 21(a) of the said Act was filed before learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Tando Bago by Abdul Qayoom Rajput, Cane Commissioner, Sindh stating therein that despite direction to start crushing of sugarcane on a date fixed by the Authority, the respondent/accused failed to comply with the said direction and as such committed an offence punishable under section 21(a) of the Act. The punishment provided under section 21(a) of the Act is imprisonment up to 12 months or fine up to Rs.1,00,000 or both. Mr. Rasheed Qureshi learned Assistant-Advocate General has argued that Direct Complaint could not be dismissed in absence of the complainant hence the impugned order is illegal on the face of it and as such the learned Additional Sessions Judge also erred in law while dismissing the revision application. In support of his contentions, he referred to case of Zahoor v. Said-ul-Ibrar 2003 SCMR 59 which relates to the offences which are either cognizable or non-compoundable which is not the case here. Section 22 of the Act is in itself very clear on the point and leaves no room for any doubt. It shall be beneficial to reproduce the same hereinafter:-- S.22. Institution of proceedings.
No prosecution shall be instituted under this Act except upon a complaint made by or under the authority from the Cane Commissioner. (ii) On the application of a person accused of an offence under this Act, the Cane Commissioner may, with the previous approval of the Government, compound such offence by levying a composition fine not exceeding two times the fine which could be imposed for such offence at any stage before conviction. (iii) . (iv) (a) (b) . (c) .. I have given due consideration to the arguments of learned Assistant Advocate-General and the case-law cited by him which is not applicable at all in view of the above-cited provisions of law which clearly show that offences under the Sugar Factories Control Act are non-cognizable and compoundable in nature. Even otherwise after dismissal of revision application, powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. are to be used sparingly and only when there appears to be abuse of the process of law or when it is necessary to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated which is not the case here. Resultantly I do not find any substance in this Criminal Miscellaneous Application which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S-122/K Application dismissed.