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

1975 Supreme(Mad) 94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.
T. K. S. M. Kalyanasundaram .....Appellant(s)
Versus
Kalyani Ammal and another .....Respondent(s)
Crl.R.C. No. 743 of 1973 (P) Crl.R.P. No.732 of 1973.
Decided On : 14 February 1975

Advocates:
A. A. Selvam, for Petitioner.
N. Natarajan and Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry, for Respondents.

Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be used to remove a nuisance only in cases of emergency and imminent danger to the health or physical comfort of the community.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 133 - NUISANCE - SUMMARY PROCEDURE - EMERGENCY - INJURY TO HEALTH OR PHYSICAL COMFORT OF COMMUNITY - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

A rice mill owner was directed by a Magistrate to take certain measures to prevent nuisance caused by the mill to the residents of the locality. The owner challenged the order, arguing that section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which provides for summary procedure to remove nuisance, was not applicable in this case as the nuisance had been in existence for a long period and there was no imminent danger to health or physical comfort of the community.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court set aside the Magistrate's order, holding that section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code is attracted only in cases of emergency and imminent danger to the health or physical comfort of the community. The court found that there was no such emergency in this case and that the Magistrate was not justified in giving the directions he did.

Issues: Whether section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be used to remove a nuisance that has been in existence for a long period.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides a speedy and summary remedy only in cases of urgency where danger to public interest or public health is involved. In all other cases, the party should be referred only to the remedy under the ordinary law.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the Magistrate's order.

ORDER.- This revision petition is preferred against the orders of the First Class Magistrate (Executive), Karaikal, in M.C. No. 18 of 1971 on his file giving certain directions to the Petitioner herein (respondent in M.C. No. 18 of 1971).

2. M.C. No. 18 of 1971 was filed by the first respondent herein under section 133, Criminal Procedure, Code, in order to prohibit the working of the petitioner’s industry in his rice mill situate in East Street, Neravy, a residential area, on the ground that the conduct of the said trade in the premises is injurious to the health and the physical comfort of the residents of that locality. The trade carried on by the petitioner is processing and boiling of paddy after it is soaked for softness in cisterns and the spreading of the boiled paddy on the open yard inside the mill premises for drying. The first respondent alleged nuisance by the foul smell emanting from the soaking cisterns, stagnation of water drained from these cisterns and the fly ash disseminated from the smoke belched out of the chimney while boiling of paddy with the use of husk as fuel. The Magistrate originally passed a conditional order under section 133 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, to the effect that the petitioner should desist from soaking and softening paddy till he modified the cisterns so as to obviate foul smell emanating therefrom and should also desist from using husk in the boiling of paddy till necessary modifications are made to prevent fly ash from being emanated all round. That conditional order was later made absolute. The petitioner filed Cr.R.C. No. 117 of 1972 on the file of this High Court and this Court, by order dated 5th January, 1973, set aside the said order and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for disposal afresh after making a local inspection and after examining public health authorities and the Chief Medical Officer and after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead additional evidence. It is seen from the order of the learned Magistrate that he made a local inspection of the industrial establishment after due notice to the parties and in the presence of the learned counsel on 14th May, 1973. He also examined one Dr. Benedict, the ex-Chief Medical Officer, Karaikal. His report dated 8th May, 1969 is marked as Exhibit C-1.


The learned Magistrate also considered the medical report of Dr. Carounanidhy the then Chief Medical Officer, who was also cross-examined by both parties with reference to his report dated 7th June, 1973, which has been marked as Exhibit G-2. The learned Magistrate also examined Dr. John Thomas whose report dated 30th April, 1971 had been adverted to by the previous Magistrate and that has been marked as Exhibit C-3. On a consideration of the evidence given by all the three Medical Officers, the learned Magistrate found that there was obnoxious smell emanating from the cisterns where the paddy is soaked, that the fly ash and smoke being belched out of chimney of the mill is deposited on the terrace of the first respondent herein, that the water from the cisterns of the soaked paddy is being let out by the open channels and allowed within the compound of the mill. According to the doctors, there is inconvenience caused by the mill in its vicinity and there is nuisance as a result of the soaking smell of the soaked paddy in the cisterns and as a result of the fly ash being carried by the blowing wind to the roofs around the mill and in particular to the terrace of the first respondent herein. The Magistrate also satisfied himself about the facts on his personal inspection of the mill. According to two doctors, the particles of the fly ash and the foul smell emanating from the soaking tubs cause a nuisance and are certainly a source of inconvenience to human beings. Two of the doctors opined that the ashes and dust might cause injury to public health and they proposed some remedial measures.

3. On a consideration of all the above circumstances and on his own personal sa






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 Back to top