( 1 ) CRIMINAL Revision No. 1389 of 1993 and the other connected revision petitions aforestated, stem from identical orders of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hapur Distt. Ghaziabad under S. 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Criminal Revision No. 1389 of 1993 is directed against the order dated 18-9-1993 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hapur District Ghaziabad, passed in Criminal Case No. 15 of 1992, thereby making an earlier order under S. 133, Cr. P. C. absolute. Similar orders followed in other conected revision petitions. These revision petitions as initially instituted, were cognizable by a Single Judge Bench but subsequently, as a result of the order dated 22-1-1997 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27299 of 1996 by Division Bench of this Court, these were directed to be listed alongwith the said writ petition and it is in this conspectus that the matter come up before the Division Bench.

( 2 ) THE arguments were canvassed on 22-7-1997, 24-7-1997, 31-7-97 and lastly on 4-9-97, when the Court, to avoid further protraction of the aforestated revision-petitions, closed the arguments and judgments reserved.

( 3 ) THE facts necessary to unfold the controversy involved in the case, briefly, stated, are that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hapur, Distt. Ghaziabad, passed orders under S. 133, Cr. P. C. bearing on M/s. Hindustan Glue and Ziletin Factory and other factories carrying their venture at Rampur Road, Hapur in the district of Ghaziabad, to the effect that it had been brought to his notice that in the concerned factories, there was no arrangement prophylactic to proliferating air pollution being disgorged by the raw materials and water pollution being caused by effluent discharged by the factories were facing grave health hazards due to air pollution and water pollution so caused. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hapur, accordingly bade the owners of the factories to close down the same and/or appear in the court on the date specified in the notice and show cause why the order be not made absolute. Cause was shown by the owners of the concerned factories but the learned Magistrate made the conditional order issued under S. 133, Cr. P. C. absolute vide orders impugned in these revision petitions. It is the validity and propriety of these orders which have come to be challenged in the revision petitions aforestated.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the applicants in the respective revision petitions urged that the learned Magistrate made the order under S. 133 absolute without affording opportunity to the applicants to lead evidence and also without observing in compliance the procedures laid down in Ss. 137 and 138, Cr. P. C.

( 5 ) SECTION 133, Cr. P. C. in so far as it is rele-vant to the controversy involved in the case, may be abstracted below. " (1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence, (if any) as he thinks fit, considers- (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation or the keeping of any goods or merchandise, is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof regulated; or (c) to (f ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order - (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .