GOBIND SINGH versus SHANTI SARUP

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 806 · Decided: 15-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
806 
GOBIND SINGH 
v. 
SHANTI SARUP 
September 15, 1978 
'(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., R. S. SARKARIA AND 
0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J 
Nuisance-Public nuisance removal of-Preventive Jurisdiction of the Magis-
trate under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, explained-Magistrate 
must act purely in the interests of the pubUc. 
On a complaint by the respondent a partner of the Punjab Oil Mills, that 
the appellant who had been carrying on the occupation of a baker in the premises 
let out to him by the Mills had constructed an oven and a chimney, which 
constituted a nuisance under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the 
trial magistrate after hearing the parties and on local inspection confirmed his 
earlier conditional order directing the appellant to demolish the oven and the 
chimney within a period of ten days. While confirming the conditional order 
the magistrate however directed the appellant to cease carrying on the trade of 
a baker at the particular site and not to lit the oven agaoin. The Additional 
Sessions Judge recommended reversal of the said order and made a reference 
to the High Court. The High Court, upheld the trial court's order. 
E 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court 
F 
G 
H 
HELD : I. In a matter of this nature where what is involved is not merely 
the right of a private individual but the health, safety and convenienre of the 
public at large, the safer course would ·be to accept the view of the learned 
magistrate, who saw for himself the hazard resulting from the working of the 
bakery. [809B-CJ 
The magistrate however went beyond the scope of the conditional order 
passed by him. Preventing the appellant from using the oven is certainly within 
the terms of the conditional order but not so the order requiring him to desist 
from can)'ing on the trade of a baker at the site. [809C-D] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 
1973. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
15-1-73 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr!. Revision No. 
176-R of 1971. 
T1rth Singh Munjral and H. K. Puri for the appellant. 
V. M. Tarkunde, R. L. Batra, S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and 
P. N. Puri for the Respondent. 
I 
' I 
.. 
' 
. -.. 
.. 
\ 
f 
GOBIND SINGH v. SHANTI SARUP (Chandrachud, C.J.) 
807 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, C. J.-The respondent who is 
partner of 
the 
Punjab Oil Mills, Khanna, filed in the Court of the Sub-Divisional 
Magistrate, Samrala, an application under section 133 of the Code of 
Crimhlal Procedure, 1898, complaining that the appellant, who had 
been carrying on the occupation of a baker in the premises let out to 
him by the Mills, had constructed an oven and a chimney which consti-
tuted a nuisance under Section 133 of the Code. 
By an order dated December 16, 1969, the learned Sub-Divisional 
Magistrate served a conditional order on the appellant under section 
133(1) of the Code calling upon him to demolish the oven and the 
chimney within a period of 10 days from the date of the order and to 
show cause why the order should not be confirmed. 
After hearing the 
parties and considering the evidence led by them, the learned Magis-
trate made the conditional order absolute on June 18, 1970. While 
<:enfirming the conditional order, the learned Magistrate however direc-
ted the appellant to cease carrying on the trade of a baker at the parti-
<:ular site and not to lit the oven again. 
The appellant filed a revision petition against the order of the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate under sections 435 and 436 Of the Code. By a 
judgment dated August 26, 1971, the learned Additional Sessions 
Judge, Ludhiana, disagreed with the order passed by the Sub-Divisioual 
Magistrate and made a reference to the High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana recommending that since there was no evidence on record to 
show that the oven was enlarged by the appellant in the year 1969 as 
.alleged by the respondent and since there was positiv·e documentary 
,evidence on the record to show the particular oven was in existence 
for a period of 16 or 17 years, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional 
Magistrate should be quashed, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The reference was heard by a learned single Judge of the High 
Court, who by a judgment dated January 15, 1973 rejected the recom-
mendation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and upheld the 
order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Being aggrieved by the judg-
ment

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.