Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
Ashtalakshmi Nagar – Petitioner
Versus
The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy & Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD)No. 23469 of 2017 & W.M.P(MD)No. 19729 of 2017
Decided On : 05-02-2018
Bankers book Evidence Act – Sections 4, 64, 65 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13 – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120, 420, 477 – Withdrawal of amount – M/s.Nurit Inks (P). Ltd represented by its Managing Director G.Ramachandran is a constituent of the Indian Bank, Mylapore Branch since 1984. – On 20.12.1991 Thiru. G.S.Subbaraman as the Chief Manager of Indian Bank, Mylapore Branch purchased a Foreign Cheque bearing No. 79584032 A/c with Union Bank, Switzerland, Zurich for Swizz Franc One Lakh issued by one Ms. Malliga Saravanamuthu payable to NIFE.AB. – The cheque was endorsed by the payee to Shri G.Ramachandran of M/s. Nurit Inks (P) Ltd. – The proceeds of the cheque was credited into the savings bank account of G.Ramachandran and he had withdrawn the amount subsequently. – The cheque so purchased by G.S.Subbaraman and encashed by Ramachandran returned unhonoured on 08.01.1992 for the reason cheque blocked. – A sum of Rs.18,63,932/- being the FBP liability was reversed on 14.01.1992. – Later, Shri N.Kumar, nephew of G.Ramachandran remitted Rs.12 lakhs on 23.1.1992, Rs.5 lakhs on 24.1.1992 and Rs.2 lakhs totally a sum of Rs.19 lakhs towards this liability and the same was credited into the account of Ramachandran on 04.02.1992 and adjusted towards the PBP liability and interest. – Held, Rule which is the most universal, namely that the best evidence the nature of the case will admit shall be produced, decides this objection that rule only means that, so long as the higher or superior evidence is within your possession or may be reached by you, you shall give no inferior proof in relation to it. Section 65 deals with the proof of the contents of the documents tendered in evidence. – In order to enable a party to produce secondary evidence it is necessary for the party to prove existence and execution of the original document. – Under Section 64, documents are to be provided by primary evidence. Section 65, however permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents under the circumstances mentioned. – The conditions laid down in the said Section must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. – Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the Section. – Court has come to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the appellants through the best evidence available with them. Relying upon the photocopies of documents not duly certified in the manner known to law, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Criminal Appeals Nos. 445, 448, 438 & 479 of 2010 are allowed. – The Judgment of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. – The bail bond executed if any, shall stand cancelled. – Fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the appellants. – Order Accordingly
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and directives related to noise pollution and the regulation of loudspeakers are as follows:
Fundamental Rights and Noise Pollution: The right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to live in a peaceful, noise-free environment. Excessive noise that interferes with the normal enjoyment of life can be considered a nuisance and is subject to regulation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Definition of Noise Pollution: Noise is recognized as unwanted sound that can be harmful to health and well-being. It is included within the scope of air pollutants under environmental laws and is defined as an undesirable or disturbing sound (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Statutory Laws and Regulations: Several laws and rules are in place to regulate noise pollution, including:
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regulates the use of horns and silencers on vehicles to control noise emissions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Restrictions on Loudspeakers and Amplifiers:
The noise level at the boundary of public places using loudspeakers must not exceed specified decibel limits, and amplification beyond permissible levels constitutes an offense (!) (!) (!) .
Responsibility and Enforcement:
There is a need for trained enforcement personnel equipped with appropriate measuring instruments such as sound level meters (!) (!) .
Awareness and Preventive Measures:
Special attention should be given to regulating noise during festivals, religious events, and public gatherings, encouraging quieter alternatives (!) (!) .
Guidelines and Directions for Authorities:
Specific instructions include banning or restricting the use of cone speakers and loudspeakers in public and religious places, especially during nighttime, and ensuring compliance through inspections and penalties (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Judicial Directions:
In summary, the legal framework emphasizes the regulation of noise pollution through specific rules, the balancing of fundamental rights, strict enforcement measures, and public awareness initiatives to mitigate the adverse effects of noise, particularly from loudspeakers and public address systems.
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 7 herein to take appropriate action against the ninth respondent who is creating noise pollution by using prohibited horn type loudspeaker without getting any permission or licence, within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
2. Considering the nature of the issue involved herein, this Court by order dated 21.12.2017, suo-motu, impleaded the Secretary to Government, Public Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009, as the tenth respondent in this writ petition.
3. Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 10. Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the third respondent. In view of the order that is going to be passed, notice to the other respondents is dispensed with.
4. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
5. According to the petitioner, the petitioner Sangam is registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the members of the petitioner Sangam are residing in the said area. Meanwhile, the ninth respondent - Church without obtaining proper permission from the competent authority, constructed a prayer hall and further, is using banned horn type long handle loudspeakers and thereby, created noise pollution in that locality. Due to the act of the ninth respondent, the residents therein are suffering a lot because of noise pollution caused by him.
6. Further, the ninth respondent used the horn speakers as against the provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and caused hindrance to the students and patients in that area. Therefore, the petitioner Sangam made a representation to the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the ninth respondent, but no action is forthcoming so far. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the ninth respondent has conducted the prayers all along the day by using the banned horn type long handle loudspeakers with high volume and he also erected loudspeakers in eight directions permanently. Despite several restrictions were imposed on the use of loudspeakers, the ninth respondent having disregard to those rules framed under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, violated the same and caused noise pollution to the extent possible and thus, the petitioner Sangam made several representations to the authorities concerned seeking appropriate action against the use of loudspeakers by the ninth respondent, however, their request did not see the light of the day so far and hence, he prayed for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 7 to take appropriate action against the ninth respondent for the use of the banned loudspeakers.
8. Heard the submissions of the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 10 and also, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent in this regard.
9. At the outset itself, this Court finds it appropriate to refer to some of the decisions relating to the negative impact of 'Noise Pollution' on the society and the need of the hour to reduce and/or curtail the same to the maximum extent possible for the betterment of the lives and they are:
9.1. In Appa Rao, M.S. v. Govt. of T.N., (1995) 1 LW 319 (Mad), the Madras High Court taking a note of the serious health hazard and disturbance to public order and tranquility caused by the uncontrolled noise pollution prevailing in the State, issued a writ of mandamus for directing State Government to impose strict conditions for issue of license for the use of amplifiers and loudspeakers and for directing Director-General, Police (Law and Order) to impose total ban on use of horn type loudspeakers and amplifiers and air horns of automobiles.
9.2. The impact of noise pollution caused by cone
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
