Public nuisance abatement under criminal procedure remains enforceable despite municipal financial inability, with workable directions permitted.

Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 operates as an enforceable public remedy once jurisdictional facts showing a public nuisance are established, so the Magistrate must act rather than treat the matter as discretionary. The municipal council's statutory duties to provide cleansing, drainage and abatement of nuisance under section 123 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 are mandatory, and financial inability is not a legal defence to resist compliance. The Court also recognised that directions under section 133 may be framed in workable terms while still securing public health and sanitation, and disobedience of such lawful directions may attract penal consequences under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Magistrate can direct a municipal body to abate a public nuisance and provide drainage and sanitation facilities under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, notwithstanding the municipality's plea of financial inability; and whether the High Court was right in affirming the order with workable modifications.

Analysis: Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is a public remedy designed to remove unlawful obstruction or nuisance affecting the public at large. When jurisdictional facts showing a public nuisance are established, the Magistrate is required to act, and the discretion becomes a duty. The statutory obligation of the municipal council under section 123 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 to provide cleansing, drainage, and abatement of public nuisance is mandatory. Financial incapacity is not a legal defence to disown a public duty imposed by statute. Disobedience of a lawful direction under section 133 may attract penal consequences under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court also accepted that affirmative directions could be tailored to make implementation workable while still ensuring protection of public health and sanitation.

Conclusion: The Magistrate's order was legally sustainable, the High Court was right in upholding it, and the municipality's plea of financial inability failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a public nuisance is established, section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 operates as an enforceable public remedy, and a statutory body cannot avoid its mandatory civic duties by pleading lack of funds.

---