The main legal point established in the judgment is that relief under Section 133, Cr.P.C. is disentitled if the alleged nuisance has been in existence for a long period, and the section is attracted only in cases of emergency and immediate danger to the community's health or physical comfort.

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa in revision petition filed by the complainant under Section 133, Cr.P.C. which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 27-2-1998.

2. The complainant has alleged that he is resident of Ward No. 15, Mansa which is a residential colony. The petitioners, herein have installed an Atta Chakki and cotton ginning Machine in front of the house of the applicant without permission of the Municipal Committee. It was also alleged that by working of Atta Chakki and Cotton Ginning Machine, the dust and cotton particles, are created and they spread pollution in the air which is harmful to the health of the inhabitants of the area. It also creates vibrations which affects their residential houses and also it is a cause of nuisance to them. The tractor trolleys which bring grain at the Atta Chakki are parked in the street which is not sufficiently wide and that obstructs the passage of the general public as well as of the applicants a house. He and his wife are said to be suffering from Tuberculosis.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the present petitioner who submitted a written reply. Locus standi of the complainant to file the complaint in individual capacity was denied. It was stated that Atta Chaki and Cotton Ginning Machine are working for the last so many years. The tractor trolleys come there in a very small number and they do not obstruct passage of the general public.

4. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the complainant as A.W. 3 as well as A. W. 1 Amar Singh and A. W. 2 Roop Chand whereas on behalf of the petitioners R.W. 1 Chhaju Ram has appeared as also he produced R. W. 2 Tek Singh and Babu Ram R. W. 3. After going through the entire evidence, the learned trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint finding that flour mill was installed number of years ago. It has come in the evidence of Amar Singh who has a house adjacent to Chakki that flour mill is working for the last 7-8 years. On the other hand Roop Chand has admitted that the flour mill is working since last 8-9 years. Roop Chand has a house adjacent to Buta Singh complainant. It was stated that the flour mill is covered with the roof due to which nuisance of dust does not spread outside. There is no obstruction of any type in traffic also. The learned trial Court relied upon Darshan Singh V/s. Malkiat Chand, 1990 (1) RCR 462 and Zorawar Singh V/s. Rajinder Singh alias Sher Singh, 1990 (1) RCR 467 to hold that the proceedings under Section 133, Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated since the flour mill has been installed 8-9 years ago.

5. The object of Section 133, Cr.P.C. is to enable an Executive Magistrate to pass orders speedily in a case where public nuisance or obstruction has been made in the right of the public at large. The object of Section 133, Cr.P.C. is not to enable a complainant to obtain order to safeguard his civil right nor he can obtain any relief in connection with his legal rights. The order contemplated under Section 133, Cr.P.C. is for the benefit of public at large. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Vasant Manga Nikumba V/s. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu (D) By LRs. 1995 Suppl (4) SCC 54 has approved the judgment of Madras High Court holding that where the alleged nuisance has been in existence for a long period and the circumstantial evidence did not prove that an urgency existed warranting the taking of action under Section 133, Cr.P.C., it has been held that no action can be taken under this section where the obstruction or nuisance has been in existence for a long period and the only remedy open to the aggrieved party was to move the Civil Court. Section 133 is attracted only in case of emergency and immediate danger to the health or physical comfort to the community. While approving the Madras High Court Judgment the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

"5. In T. K. S. M. Kalyanasundaram V/s. Kalyani Ammal, the Madra