Public nuisance under Section 133 CrPC requires evidence of community-wide injury; High Court's order sustaining action was upheld.

Proceedings under Section 133 CrPC are summary and are meant to address public nuisance affecting the community at large, not private disputes. For action under clause (b), the Magistrate must have reliable evidence that the keeping, storage, loading or unloading of goods is injurious in presenti, or poses imminent danger to, the health or physical comfort of a substantial section of the public in the locality. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in sustaining action under Section 133 on the facts, and the appeal was dismissed. Any alternative arrangement or regulatory mode of storage or handling was left for the Magistrate to consider in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate was justified in proceeding under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis that the keeping, storage, loading and unloading of chillies in the godown caused public nuisance and injury to the health or physical comfort of the community, and whether the revisional and High Court orders could be sustained.

Analysis: Proceedings under Section 133 are summary in nature and are meant to address public nuisance affecting the community at large, not private disputes. For action under clause (b), it must be shown that the trade or occupation, or keeping of goods, is injurious in presenti to the health or physical comfort of the community, or that there is imminent danger of such injury. The expression 'community' denotes a wider body of persons in a locality, and the jurisdiction depends on the existence of reliable evidence showing that a substantial section of the public is affected. The power under Section 133 may also permit regulation of the activity, and the Magistrate is required to decide the matter on the evidence brought before him under the statutory scheme of Sections 133 and 138.

Conclusion: The order of the High Court sustaining action under Section 133 was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. The matter of any suggested alternative arrangement or regulatory mode of storage or handling was left to be considered by the Magistrate in accordance with law.

---