Crl. Misc. No. M-15849 of 2011 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-15849 of 2011 (O & M) DATE OF DECISION: August 16, 2011 Amritpal Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. P.K. Longia, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G, Punjab. Ms. R.P. Dudeja, Advocate, for respondents no. 2 and 3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition, by way of second revision petition, however, termed as a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges order Annexure P-3 dated 13.06.2008 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate (East), Ludhiana, whereby complaint under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was allowed. The petition also challenges order Annexure P-5 dated 27.04.2011 passed by the Court of Sessions, Ludhiana. The revisional Court has upheld the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. 2. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that earlier the petitioner was running the business of making envelopes under the name and style of M/s. Amrit Envelope Maker. Subsequently, however, the petitioner has changed the name to 'Amritson Printers'. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is only on the basis of report of Local Commissioner that the impugned orders have been Crl. Misc. No. M-15849 of 2011 (O & M) 2 passed, which is illegal. 4. On the second count, it has been pleaded that the work has been going on for 10 years. In such circumstances, in view of law laid down by this Court in 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 416 entitled Makhan Lal Vs. Buta Singh, the respondents have lost their right to invoke provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3 has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India 2004 Criminal Law Journal 4634,, Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. to contend that even after 20 years of objectionable activity going on, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Learned counsel for the respondents has also contended that earlier only manual labour was involved in making envelopes by the petitioner. Subsequently, however, printing machine has been set up which causes nuisance on account of loud noise level. 6. It remains the admitted position that the petitioner is carrying on the business in residential locality. 7. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. 8. Relevant portion of report of Tehsildar, who went to the spot, reads as under:- “At the time of spot inspection his machine was running and on the upper floor the workers were applying glue upon the envelope. For folding the envelopes a very heavy iron brick was being used. During the working, the idea of noise of machine Crl. Misc. No. M-15849 of 2011 (O & M) 3 was taken by standing in the house of one neighbourer Harpal Singh and it was found that the noise of machine tortures the persons living in neighbourhood because machine creates heavy noise, normally which affects heavily upon the ears and brains. Rather the noise which is produced by use of iron brick used by the workers at the time of applying glue torture the people all the more. I have heard these noises while standing in the neighbouring house. I am agreed with the complaint of the complainant. This machinery installed in the locality creates nuisance to adjacent neighbourers.” 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is the objective satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate that is required to be seen. All that is to be considered by the revisional Court is whether the findings recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate are based on relevant facts and material or not. 10. Facts as they emerge are that the petitioner is carrying on activity in residential area. Even as per the photographs shown in Court, a printing press has been installed by the petitioner. 11. Report of the Tehsildar as extracted above indicates that very heavy iron brick is being used for folding of envelopes, other than the fact that the printing machine would be making noise. 12. So far as the legal objection of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to say that earlier the petitioner was involving only manual labour for making envelopes. Subsequently, it appears that machines have been installed which are making loud noises that are raising Crl. Misc. No. M-15849 of 2011 (O & M) 4 nuisance in the entire residential locality. In such circumstances, the judgment rendered in Makhan Lal's case (supra) does not come to the aid of the case of the petitioner. 13. In Kachrulal Bhagirath Agarwal's case (supra), it has been held that a proceeding under Section 133 is of a summary nature. It appears as a part of Chapter X of the Code which relates to maintenance of public order and tranquility. Nuisances are of two kinds, i.e. (i) Public; and (ii) Private. 'Public nuisance' or 'common nuisance' as defined in Section 268 of IPC is an offence against the public either by doing a thing which tends to the annoyance of the whole community in general or by neglecting to do anything which the common good requires. It is an act or omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the public in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity. 14. It has also been held that although every person is bound to so use his property that it may not work legal damage or harm to his neighbour, yet on the other hand, no one has the right to interfere with the free and full enjoyment by such person of his property, except on clear and absolute proof that such use of it by him is producing such legal damage or harm. 15. The facts and circumstances clearly indicate that in residential area, the petitioner is carrying a kind of industrial activity that raises loud noise causing nuisance to the public/residents of the area. In such circumstances, the impugned orders, being based on relevant material, call for no interference. 16. Petition is accordingly dismissed. 16.08.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE