AI Overview...

• Order by Executive Magistrate under CrPC for Nuisance - An order passed by an Executive Magistrate under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. for removal of nuisance or obstruction can be based on a police report. Such orders are issued to prevent public nuisance or obstruction, and the Magistrate's authority is derived from the provisions of the CrPC TOFAN SINGH VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU - Supreme Court.

• Statements and Evidence - Confessional statements made to officers authorized under Section 42, who may invoke powers under Section 67, are generally barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act from being used as evidence. Additionally, such confessional statements are not equivalent to statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which pertains to police examination of witnesses. Therefore, such confessional statements cannot be the sole basis for an order under Section 133 TOFAN SINGH VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU - Supreme Court.

• Legal Framework and Revision - Orders passed by Executive Magistrates under Section 133 are subject to revision if found to be made without proper jurisdiction or on incorrect facts. The revision is a legal remedy to ensure that the order aligns with the legal standards and facts, maintaining the legality and fairness of the proceedings TOFAN SINGH VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU - Supreme Court.

Analysis and Conclusion:
An Executive Magistrate's order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. concerning nuisance must be grounded on a police report and cannot rely solely on confessional statements obtained from officers, especially if barred under the Evidence Act. Such orders are revisable if they are found to be improperly made. The legal process emphasizes the importance of proper evidence and jurisdictional correctness in passing orders related to nuisance removal.

References:
- Cr.P.C. Sections 133, 161, 162, 42, 67
- Evidence Act, Section 25