SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(Cal) 19

SEN, K.C.CHUNDER
DWARIKA PROSAD – Appellant
Versus
B. K. ROY CHOUDHURY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.S. Mukherjee, Priti Bhusan Burman, N.K. Sen, J.M. Banerjee, Chintaharan Roy.

JUDGEMENT

Sen, J.

[1] This rule was obtained by the petitioners against whom an order has been passed in proceedings under Section 133, Criminal P. C., by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Asansol directing the petitioners to refrain from working in ice-cream making machine between the hours of 11 P. M. and 5 A. M.

[2] The case against the petitioners briefly is as follows : The petitioners have a shop in certain premises where they make ice-cream. The ice-cream is made in a refrigerator. It is said that the noise created by the working of the refrigerator constitutes a public nuisance. The defence taken is that the noise made is not a public nuisance. The learned Magistrate, as I stated before, has passed an order restraining the petitioners from working this machine for a certain period. A motion was taken from this order to the Sessions Judge and he has confirmed it.

[3] The first point raised by learned advocate appearing for the petitioners is that the alleged nuisance, if it be a nuisance at all is not a public nuisance and therefore proceedings under Section 138, Criminal P. C., to abate the nuisance are not permissible. His contention is that proceedings under Section 133, Crimi









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top