KACHRULAL BHAGBIRATH AGRAWAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 22-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KACHRULAL BHAGBIRATH AGRA WAL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section J 33(l)(b)-Public 
nuisance-By trade or occupation-Scope and ambit of-Held: In order to 
bring a trade or occupation within operation of Section 133(l)(b), it must 
A 
B 
be shown that interference with public comforfwas considerable and a large 
C 
section of public was affected injuriously-The object and purpose behind 
the Section is essentially to prevent public nuisance and involves a sense of 
urgency. 
Appellant No.1 was a wholesale dealer in dry chillies. His godown 
for storing dry chillies was in a residential area. The residents of the 
D 
area filed a complaint u/s 133 Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Division Magistrate 
(SDM) making the grievance that on account of storing and loading and 
unloading of the chillies the health and physical comfort of the residents 
of that locality were adversely affected. SDM after inquiry into the 
case, found that applicants proved public nuisance and physical 
E 
discomfort and hence directed the appellant not to store and transport 
the chillies in the godown and to remove all the goods stored therein. 
Revisional Court held that the SDM had committed error in holding 
that the business of the non-applicant caused public nuisance. In criminal 
revision High Court set aside the order of revisional Court holding that 
conditions requisite for passing orders u/ss 133(l)(b) and 138 were 
F 
fulfilled. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that it was not 
established that the conduct of business was injurious to the health or 
physical comfort of the community; that SDM and High Court had not G 
examined the aspect as to whether the SDM had jurisdiction to pass 
directions regulating conduct of trade or keeping of the goods. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any H · 
597 
598 
SUPREME COURT REPORTSf2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
infirmity. SDM could consider the suggestions, if any, given by the 
appellants, as to the manner in which goods can be stored or conneCted 
activities by passing order of regulatory nature. This is permissible by_ 
the provisions itself which provide that SDM can regulate such activities. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
(606-H; 607-A; 607-B] 
2. Proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. are not intended to settle 
private disputes between different members of the public. They are in 
fact intended to protect the public as a whole against inconveniences. A 
comparison between the provisions of-Sections 133 and 144 of Cr.P.C. 
shows that while the former is more specific the latter is more general. 
Therefore, nuisance specially provided in the former Section is taken 
out of the general provisions of the latter section. The' proceedings 
under Section 133 are more in the nature of civil proceedings than of 
criminal nature. While the order under the former is conditional, the 
order under the latter is absolute. (605-C; 606-G] 
3. Section 133(1)(b) relates to trade or occupation which is injurious 
to liealth or physical comfort. It itself deals with physical comfort to the 
community and not with those acts which are not in themselves nuisance 
but in the course of which public nuisance is committed. 
In order to 
bring a trade or occupation within the operation of this Section, it must 
be shown that the interferenc~ with public comfort was considerable 
and a large section of the public was affected injuriously. 
The word 
'community' in Section 133(1)(b) cannot be taken to mean residents of 
a particular house. · It· means something wider, that is, the public at 
large or the residents of an entire locality. The very fact that the provision 
occurs in a Chapter with "Public Nuisance" is indicative of this aspect. 
F 
It would, however, depend on the facts situation of each case and it 
would be hazardous to lay down any straitjacket formula. [605-D-F) 
4. To bring in application of Section 133 of Cr.P.C. there must be 
imminent danger to the property and consequential nuisance to the 
public. The nuisance is the concomitant act resulting in danger to the life 
G 
or property due to likely collapse etc. The object and purpose behind 
Section 133 is essentially to prevent public nuisance and involves a sense 
of urgency in the sense that if the Magistrate fails to take recourse 
immediately irreparable danger would be done to the public. It ap

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