STATE OF M.P. versus KEDIA LEATHER AND LIQUOR LTD. AND ORS .

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 727 · Decided: 19-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
STATE OF M.P. 
A 
v. 
KEDIA LEATHER AND LIQUOR LTD. /.lli!D ORS . 
AUGUST 19, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] 
B 
Environmental Law: 
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974/Air (Prevention 
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- C 
Section 133: 
Section 133 Cr.P.C-Public nuisance-Ptovisions of law under Section 
133 vis-a-vis under .Water Act and Air Act-Effect thereto-Repeal of the 
provisions of law by implication-Scope of-Held: Aims, objects and area of D 
operation of Pollution Acts and provisions of law under Cr. P. C. are dijferent-
A/leviate nuisance but not of identical nature-No impediment for their co-
existence-Doctrine of implied repeal not attracted-Issue regarding non-
existence of infraction between Section 133 of the Code and the two Acts 
should be dealt with by the appropriate forum-Interpretation of Statutes. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of implied repeal-Applicability of 
Words and Phrases: 
'Nuisance'-Meaning of in the context of Section 133 Cr.P.C, Water 
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Air (Prevention and Control 
of Pollution) Act. 
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings in terms of Section 
E 
F 
133 Cr.P.C. against the respondent-industries for causing pollution thereby G 
causing public nuisance and directed them to close their industrial units. 
Aggrieved, responde:its moved the mgh Court. The High Court held that after 
introduction of the Water (Prevention and Control) Act and the Air (Prevention 
and Control) Act, there was implied repeal of Section 133 Cr.P.C. Hence the 
present appeals by the State. 
727 
H 
728 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The object and purpose behind Section 133 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure 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 damage would be done to the public. One significant 
B factor to be noticed is that the person against whom action is taken is not an 
accused within the meaning of Section 133 of the Code and proceedings are 
not the proceedings in respect of offences. The Water Act and the Air Act 
are characteristically special statutes. The two statutes relate to prevention 
and control of pollution and also provides for penal consequences in case of 
C breach of statutory provisions. (732-C, E, F) 
D 
Vasant Manga Nikumb and Ors. v. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu 
(deceased) by Lrs. and Anr., (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 54, referred to. 
Halsbury 's Laws of England, referred to. 
1.2. There is presumption against a repeal by implication that the reason 
of the rule is based on the theory that the Legislature while enacting a law 
has a complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject matter, 
and therefore, when it does not provide a repealing provision, the intention is 
clear not to repeal the existing legislation. When the new Act contains a 
E repealing section mentioning the Acts which it expressly repeals, the 
presumption against implied repeal of other laws is further strengthened on 
the principle expressio unius (persone vel rei) est exclusio alterius. (The 
express intention of one person or thing is the exclusion of another). The 
continuance of existing legislation, in the absence of an express provision of 
repeal by implication lies on the party asserting the same. The presumption 
F is, however, rebutted and a repeal is inferred by necessary implication when 
the provisions of the later Act are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the 
provisions of the earlier Act and that the two cannot stand together. But, if 
the two can be read together and some application can be made of the words 
in the earlier Act, a repeal will not be inferred. (733-C-El 
G 
Municipal Council, Palai through the Commissioner of Municipal 
Council, Palai v. /.J. Joseph, AIR (1963) SC 1561; Northern India Caterers 
(Private) Ltd and Anr. v. State of Pubjab and Anr., AIR (1967) SC 1581; 
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker, (1971) 1 SCC 442; Ratan 
Lal Adukia and Anr. v. Union of India, AIR (1990) SC 104 and R.S. Raghunath 
H v. State of Karnataka and Anr., AIR (1992) SC 81, referred to. 
-· 
STATEOFM.P. v. KEDIALEATHERANDLIQUORLTD. 
729 
Garnett v. Bradley, (1878) 3 AC 944 (HL) and A.G. Moore (1878) 3 Ex. A 
D 276, referred to. 
1.3. The doctrine of implied repeal is based on the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.