SATISH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SATISH Kumar petitioner, who is carrying on the business of manufacturing metal trunks, has moved this criminal miscellaneous under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 14.2.1990, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana, Annexure P5 and order dated 24.8.1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, Annexure P6 in proceedings under Section 133, Cr.P.C.

(2.) DR . (Ms) Nalini Dutta, Senior Medical Officer, Sahnewal made a complaint to the Police that in her neighbourhood there used to be a sweet-shop, but a year earlier the petitioner had stated manufacturing drums and the same trade causes to tinkering the entire day. The matter was reprted to the Panchayat, but the same had made no efect.

(3.) NO second revison being competent, the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are to be invoked only in special circumstances. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the legal effect of the orders Annexure P5 and P6 amounts to closing of the entire trade of the petitioner and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge had not taken note of the provisons contained in Section 133 (1) (b) (ii), Cr.P.C. In case the trade of the petitioner was considered to be offensive, amounting to nuisance, it could be regulated, but could not be entirely closed, especially as the noise created by the manufacturing of metaltins and drums, creates no nuisance other than raising of noise, and the same is not otherwise injurious to human health. The petitioner has been running his trade in a busy locality and the complainant could not expect the same comforts of silence, as may be expected in the Civil Lines of a big city. Sahanewal is a small town and from the evidence on record, it has been established that the complainant was living in a busy locality where other shops are also running. It was in the statement of the complainant that immediately in front of her house, there is a grain market and it is situated on a busy road at a short distance from the railway station. It has also come in the statement of PW Arun Kumar that about 25 yards away from her house, there is Railway track running between Ludhiana and Delhi on which a train passes after every 30/40 minutes. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel. A person who lives in a residential cum market area, has to put up with some discomfort. Since the location of the house of the complainant is close to the railway line on the one side and busy road, on the other, there must be noise of the railway trains and the motor vehicles on the road. A little more of the noise is being aded to by the trade being carried on by the petitioner. Sahnewal is a small town and the complainant doctor cannot expect the comforts of silence expected to Civil Lines area of a big city. She and her neighbours have to suffer some noise. The trade of the petitioner is not so offensive on which a complete bar should be created Section 133 (1) (b) (ii), Cr.P.C. reads as under :