2004 (9) TMI 656 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Sufficiency of evidence to establish public nuisance.
3. Jurisdiction and scope of the SDM's powers under Section 133.
4. Reassessment of evidence by the Additional Sessions Judge.
5. High Court's analysis and judgment.

Detailed Analysis:

Legality of the Order Passed by the SDM:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was upheld by the Bombay High Court. The SDM had issued a conditional order prohibiting the storage and transportation of dry chillies in a godown situated in a residential locality, citing it as injurious to the health and physical comfort of the community. The SDM's order was later challenged in the Additional Sessions Court, which found the SDM's order to be illegal. However, the High Court reversed this decision, reinstating the SDM's order.

Sufficiency of Evidence to Establish Public Nuisance:
The SDM, after considering the evidence, concluded that the storage and transportation of dry chillies caused significant health issues such as sneezing, coughing, asthma, and skin irritation among the residents. This was corroborated by the witnesses, including those from the non-applicant's side, who admitted the discomfort caused by the business activities. The High Court found that the conditions requisite for passing an order under Section 133(1)(b) and Section 138 of the Code were fulfilled, thus validating the SDM's order.

Jurisdiction and Scope of the SDM's Powers under Section 133:
Section 133 of the Code empowers a Magistrate to issue a conditional order for the removal of nuisance if the conduct of any trade or occupation or the keeping of any goods is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community. The Supreme Court noted that proceedings under Section 133 are of a summary nature and are intended to protect the public against inconvenience. The Court emphasized that the trade must be injurious in the present time to the health or physical comfort of the community for an order under Section 133 to be justified.

Reassessment of Evidence by the Additional Sessions Judge:
The Additional Sessions Judge had reassessed the evidence and concluded that the SDM had erred in holding that the business caused public nuisance. The Judge felt that the SDM had given undue importance to the evidence presented by the applicants and had arbitrarily used his discretion. This led to the setting aside of the SDM's order. However, the High Court disagreed with this reassessment, reinstating the SDM's order based on a fresh analysis of the factual and legal positions.

High Court's Analysis and Judgment:
The High Court, upon reviewing the case, held that the SDM's order was justified and that the revisional court should not have interfered with it. The High Court found that the conditions for passing an order under Section 133 were met, and the evidence supported the conclusion that the business activities were injurious to the community's health and physical comfort. The High Court's judgment was based on the legal principles surrounding public nuisance and the powers of the Magistrate under Section 133.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, stating that the SDM's order did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Court noted that the SDM could consider any suggestions or alternative arrangements proposed by the appellants regarding the storage and transportation of goods in a manner that would not cause public nuisance. The appeal was thus dismissed with the observation that the SDM should consider any such suggestions in accordance with the law.