Find a Lawyer

STATE versus GENERAL MANAGER, PINGRIO SUGAR MILLS

Application by the State under section 561A, CR PC under preparation of Sections 561A, 247 and 439 Sugar Factories Control Act (XXII of 1950), Sections 2 (h), 8, 21 (a) and 22 Was filed. Section 247, an order direct removal of a complaint under the CRPC and removal of a revision filed against it, violates the provisions of section 8 read with Section 2 (h) of the Sugar Factories Control Act 1950 Direct complaint which was punishable under section 21 (a). An Act has been filed by the Commissioner of Canes, which states that Sugar Mill failed to comply, despite instructions by the Authority to begin crushing sugar cane on the date set by the authority. That the complaint cannot be dismissed directly in the absence of the complainant. This unwritten ruling was illegal in his view and the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the review petition and was not justified in law. After the revocation application was granted, the powers under Section 1 561A, CRPC, were to be granted to you to some extent and only when the process of law was shown to be inappropriate or when sections of justice were defeated. It was necessary to suffer defeat, which was not the case here, so the application was dismissed, in the circumstances famous lower court advocate from Bolan lawyer