Section 21 of Sugar Factories (Control) Act: LHC say no FIR can be lodged on an individual’s report

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that an FIR cannot be registered against a sugar miller upon the report of an individual including a grower as under section 21 of the Sugar Factories (Control) Act, the act or the offence is cognizable only upon a formal report of the Cane Commissioner, Additional Cane Commissioner or their nominee.

The court passed this order in a petition of a factory manager Azhar Fazal who approached the court against the decision of an ex-officio justice of peace directing to register case against the petitioner and others on a complaint of harassment and threats.

The court set aside the decision of the ex-officio justice of peace to extend of registration of case against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act and observed that the justice of peace remained oblivious of this provision.

The court dismissed the petition to extent of section 342 and 506 PPC and directed the respondent ex-officio justice of peace to record the statement of the respondent and proceed in accordance with the law.

LHC orders auction of properties of Brother Sugar Mills

Allegation against the petitioner is that respondent supplied sugarcane to the petitioner’s factory but despite repeated demands, the due amount was not paid and when respondent went to the petitioner general manager, along with witnesses, he and his other co-accused ridiculed him and detained him in a room on gun point.

The petitioner has assailed order of the ex-officio justice of peace directing to record the version of respondent, register the FIR and then to proceed further in accordance with law.

The court noted that the report sent by the deputy commissioner to the ex-officio justice of peace reveals that the liability of the occupier had not been determined till then.

The court said, there is no doubt about the proposition that on receiving information regarding commission of an offence, respondent is under obligation to record the statement under Section 154 or 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the case may be.

However, the comments received by the ex-officio justice of peace from the deputy commissioner are not to be taken as a report in terms of Section 21(b) of the Act, the court added.

The court observed that the prosecution against a miller is to be initiated under the Act determined in the light of provisions of the Act and not against all concerned with the factory but the ex-officio justice of peace remained oblivious of this provision, the court concluded.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025