Criminal Procedure Code
DR. TANVIR KAUR
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
CHANDIGARH LAW COLLEGE
—Public nuisances
Sec 133. Conditional order for removal of nuisance
• District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive
is empowered to exercise its powers to stop the nuisance on receipt of
a police report or other report.
• Involves sense of urgency.
• Applies to the condition of nuisance at the time when the order is
passed and not intended to apply to future likelihood.
• Sec 152 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
2
Categories of cases which can be redressed under sec 133 of the
code:
1. Unlawful nuisance or obstruction
2. The construction of any building or the disposal of any
substance.
3. The conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping of any
goods or merchandise, is injurious to the health or physical
comfort of the community.
4. that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a
condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to
persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or
passing
5. that any tank, well or excavation adjacent to any such way or
public place should be fenced in such manner as to prevent
danger arising to the public;
6. that any dangerous animal should be destroyed, confined or
otherwise disposed of
Conditions precedent for application under sec 133
• Public nuisance
• Not a private dispute between different members of public
• Great emergency/ imminent danger
Sec 134. Service or notification of order.
Proclamation i.e. by publication or by fixing up the copy at such place
or places as may be fittest for conveying the information to such
person.
Sec 153 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Sec 135: Two Alternatives
• To perform, within the time and in the manner specified in the order, the act
directed thereby; or
• appear in accordance with such order and show cause against the same.
• Sec 154 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Sec 136 Penalty in case of non compliance of Sec 135
The penalty is prescribed under sec 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Now Sec 221 of
BNS
Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant
Punishment: Simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or
with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;
Sec 155 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
• Sec 143. Magistrate may prohibit repetition or continuance of public nuisance.
• Sec 162 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
• Sec 144. Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger
.
• An order under this section may, be passed ex parte.
• No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from
the making thereof.
• An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to
persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally
• With the direction of state government shall remain in force for such further
period not exceeding six month
• Sec 163 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
• Any Magistrate may, rescind or alter any order.
• shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing
before him or it, either in person or by pleader and showing
cause against the order;
• In case of rejection then must record reasons in writing.
Sec 133 Crpc vis- a-vis other special Laws
• Magistrate’s power under sec 133 is not affected by other
special or local laws.
• Not affected by Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution
Act, 1974
• Sec 24 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
• Mohan Kali Yellaih & other v. State of A.P. (2001)4 Crimes 221 (A.P.)
No conditional order was made- order to close down within 2 days.
• Tejmal Puranchand v. State of Maharashtra, 1992 [Link] 379 (Bom)
• u/s 133 magistrate can act on information received from any source-before
passing a conditional order, a magistrate is bound to take evidence, because the
proceedings are entirely ex-parte- bound to pass speaking order under the
section.
• Rattlam Municipality v. Vardichand AIR 1980 SC 1622
• Public nuisance due to open drains, heaps of dirt- magistrate issued directions to
the municipality to draft a plan for the removal of nuisance within 6 months.
• The municipality cannot take plea of financial inability.
Govind Singh v. Shanti Saroop, AIR 1979 SC 143 (Chimney case)
• The defendant carrying on the business of baker and had constructed an oven and a
chimney which created a public nuisance. The SDM served conditional order calling upon
the appellant calling upon him to demolish the oven and chi,ney within 10 days. After
hearing both the parties and considering the evidence led by them, the magistrate
directed the appellant to stop carrying on the trade of baker at a particular place.
Ajeet Mehta v. State of Rajasthan (business involving loading, unloading and stocking of
fodder)
It was complained by the petitioner that the business involving loading and unloading and
stocking of fodder had become a serious health hazard to the residents of locality as the
whole atmosphere was polluted due to fine dust particles of the fodder. The magistrate
directed to remove the business within 15 days from that place.
• Krishan Gopal v. State of M.P. (1986) CrLj 396
• In this case, a complaint was registered against a glucose factory which was
causing air pollution due to the discharge of steam in the air resulting in fly ash
and noise pollution. This all cumulatively caused discomfort to the residents of
that locality.
• P.C. Cherian v. State of Kerala (1987) K.L.T 113
• In this case, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kottayam directed the stoppage of
mixing of carbon in two rubber industries which were situated in the industrial
area. As there was no dissemination prevention equipment. The High Court
sentenced that the dissemination of carbon black in the environment is causing a
public nuisance and also affecting the respiratory organs of the people.
Section 91 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Public nuisances and other
wrongful acts affecting the public"
(1) in the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting, or likely
to affect, the public, a suit for a declaration and injunction or for such
other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may
be instituted,-
(a) by the Advocate General, or
(b) with the leave of the Court, by two or more persons, even though no
special damage has been caused to such persons by reason of such public
nuisance or other wrongful act.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any
right of suit which may exist independently of its provisions.
• Definition of Public nuisance is same as Sec 268 Indian Penal Code
• Amendment in 1976
• Order 1 Rule 8
• Order I : Parties to Suits
• Rule 8: One person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same
interest. (Representative Suits)
• Definition: A representative suit is a suit filed by or against one or
more persons on behalf of themselves and others having the same
interest in the suit.
• Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with
representative suit.
• A representative suit is a suit that is filed by one or more persons on
behalf of themselves and others having same interest in the suit.
• The general rule is that all persons interested in a suit ought to be
joined as parties to it.
• Rule 8 forms an exception to this general rule.
• The rule enacted is for convenience based on reason and good
policy as it saves from expense and trouble which would otherwise
have to be incurred in such cases.
• References
Books
1. Dr. P.S. Jaswal and Dr. N. Jaswal, Environmental Law
2. Report of the Committee for Recommending Legislative Measures and
AdministrativeMachinery for Ensuring Environmental Protection (Tiwari Committee
Report (1981)).
3. Environment Protection Act : An Agenda for Implementation, A study under theauspices of
Indian Law Institute, New Delhi, prepared by Upendra Baxi, Tripathi (P)Ltd. Pub. Bombay
1987.
4. Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
5. Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act ,1981
6. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
7. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
THANKS