IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.129 of 2009. Date of decision: 29.06.2010. Vishva Nath Machhan … …Petitioner Versus Swami Lalji Maharaj & Another … …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.Hemant Vaid, Advocate. For Respondent No.2: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner has preferred this petition against the judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Shimla, acquitting respondent No.1 for offences under Section 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Instruments(Control of Noise) Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’). 2. The petitioner filed a complaint Ex.PW-1/A which was registered as First Information Report Ex.PW- 6/A, at Police Station (East), Chhota Shimla, under Section 6 of the Act. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 3. The allegations were that from 11.10.2007 to 18.10.2007, respondent Swami Lal Ji Maharaj alongwith other accused i.e. Deepak Rohal, Nareshwar Rohal, Gopal Krishan and Ashwani Kumar and others had installed 4/5 loud speakers etc. on the temple premises of Kandloo Mata Mandir, Sector-4, New Shimla. On the evening of 11.10.2007, these persons started broadcasting music/bhajans from 6.00 A.M. to 8.00 A.M. in the morning and in the evening from 5.00 P.M. to 8.30 P.M. The volume of the music/bhajans was at a very high pitch. 4. On the basis of the complaint made, PW-10 HC Budhi Singh, visited the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW-10/A. He took into possession two mikes and two speakers alongwith the stand, lead, DVD, MP3 etc. in the presence of witnesses. Ex.PW-4/A, which is recovery memo of these instruments, was prepared and handed over on sapurdari to the accused person. The photographs of the site plan were taken. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. The respondent had pleaded not guilty to the charges. 5. On the evidence on record including the plea of the respondent, who stated that he was a `Pujari’ in the temple and all the functions including maintenance of the temple are being supervised by a Committee and he is not in any manner responsible for installing the loudspeakers or playing the music etc. over it in a loud volume and that the complainant is inimical to him 3 as he has already filed a number of complaints against him, the learned Court, took into consideration the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and holds that according to Section 4 of the Act, no offence is made out because no permission is required to operate these loudspeakers etc. from 6.00 A.M. to 8.30 P.M. It is also not proved on the record as to how much the pitch/volume of the bhajans etc. being played which would render it to be a nuisance and an offence under the Act. The Court then holds that the statements of PW-1 complainant Vishwanath Machhan, PW-2 Shri R.L. Behal, PW-3, Shri Chuni Lal, contradict the statements of PW-4 Shri Umesh Sharma and PW-5 Shri Jyoti Swaroop. The Court considers the statement of PW-8 Shri Rajinder Singh, Reader to the Sub Divisional Magistrate(Rural), Shimla, who states that the application for playing the musical instruments etc. on the loud speaker was rejected with respect to temple `Sacha Shakti Peeth Ashram’ which was not at all related to that of the accused. He admits that in the year 2001, permission to use loudspeaker was granted to Shri Deepak Rohal, who is the President of the Temple Committee referred to by the accused. There is also some disputes with respect to the photographs on the spot. PW-1, the complainant, Shri Vishwanath Machhan, says that he took these photographs as the Investigating Officer was very busy. The Court also notices that no recovery was effected in front of PW-4 Shri Umesh Sharma, who has 4 not supported the prosecution case on this count. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that the conclusions reached by the learned trial Court are perverse and that there was no permission to play the loudspeaker etc. and what the respondent was doing was totally illegal and an encroachment on the rights of the petitioner. I am not persuaded to accept this submission as there is nothing to support these contentions. Even otherwise, the learned Court below having come to a just conclusion by holding that no permission was required and secondly even from the evidence of the prosecution that permission was infact granted, I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. June 29, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge