A. K. PARICHHA, J.

( 1 ) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

( 2 ) HEARD.

( 3 ) THE order dated 25. 3. 2004 of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nilgiri passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 15 of 2003 is under challenge.

( 4 ) THE facts and circumstances leading to the present revision can be summarily stated as follows.

( 5 ) THE petitioners, who are some of the villagers of Radhikadeipur, filed a petition before the learned Sub-Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, nilgiri alleging that opposite party No. 4 has obstructed a water channel thereby causing public nuisance and praying for removal of such nuisance invoking power under Section 133, Cr. P. C. Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued notice to opposite party No. 4, conducted inquiry into the allegations and passed order dated 30th May, 2003 directing opposite party No. 4 to remove the said obstruction and clear the water channel. Opposite party No. 4 filed Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2003 before the learned Sessions Judge, balasore-Bhadrak against the aforesaid order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nilgiri. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties confirmed the order of the learned S. D. M. and dismissed the revision, Opposite party No. 4 was directed to remove the obstruction, but he prayed for some more time and accordingly, a fort-night time was granted to him. Even after lapse of such time, opposite party No. 4 did not remove the obstruction, for which the petitioner filed an application under Section 141 (2), Cr. P. C. requesting the learned Sub-Divisional magistrate, Nilgiri to remove the obstruction and realise the cost of such work from opposite party No. 4. Learned S. D. M. , however, rejected that prayer with the observation that for non-compliance of the order he has already filed a complaint under section 188 of the I. P. C. against opposite party No. 4 before the S. D. J. M. , Nilgiri and when the matter was sub-judice, he cannot take any action under Section 141 (2), cr. P. C. This order of learned S. D. J. M. , nilgiri is the subject matter of this revision.

( 6 ) MR. Udit Ranjan Jena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Section 141 (1), Cr. P. C. prescribes the penal provision to punish the person disobeying the order passed under Section 136 or 138, Cr. P. C. whereas Section 141 (2), cr. P. C. is meant for execution of the order regarding removal of nuisance. He submits that the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) are complementary to each other and the observation of learned S. D. M. that since action has already been initiated under subsection (1); action under Sub-section (2) is not permissible, is not correct. According to him, the purpose of Sections 133, 136, 138 and 141, Cr. P. C. is for removal of public nuisance and, therefore, learned S. D. M. should have taken action under sub-section (2) even though complaint under Section 188, I. P. C. was pending.

( 7 ) MR. S. K. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 4, on the other hand, submits that when judicial action has been initiated under Sub-section (1) against opposite party No. 4, learned s. D. M. had no legal authority to take further action under Section 141 (2) Cr. P. C. Learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 maintains the view that Chapter (X) (B) is meant for removal of public nuisance, obstruction and the primary object is for removal of nuisance rather than to punish the person disobeying the order.

( 8 ) A close reading of the provisions of sections 133 to 141 of the Cr. P. C. would show that the primary object of these legal provisions is to see that inconvenience or danger to public are removed and to uphold such object the Magistrate has to see that the obstruction or nuisance is removed. The provisions of both Sub-sections (1) and (2)of Section 141, Cr. P. C. can be taken up s