1. 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.
2. 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 fme up to Rs.1,00,000 or both.
3. ' 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 SCM R 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.---
(i) 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 fme not exceeding two times the fine which could be imposed for such offence at any stage before conviction.
4. (c)..............
5. ' 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.
6. 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.
7. ' Resultantly I do not find any substance in this Criminal Miscellaneous Application which is dismissed in limine.