(1.) Rule.</Jpara> <Jpara>[2] LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents waive service of this petition. By consent petition is taken up for final hearing.
(3.) I have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the respondents. It was sought to be argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that action initiated against the petitioner itself is not within the parameters of section 133, Cri. P. C. , and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is wrong and required to be interfered with. He had drawn my attention to the map issued by Tahsildar, warora and had tried to submit that there is distance between the shop of the petitioner and the respondent of about 18 ft. i. e. the shop of the petitioner is on one side of the road and the shop of respondent No. 1 is on the other side. He also pointed out on the basis of the said map that chilly pounding is about 19 ft. away from the entrance of the shop. He submitted that the activity of chilly pounding is done at a distance of about 37 ft. away from the entrance of the shop of respondent No. 1. He had submitted that the map is relevant and throws light on the factual aspect. Learned Advocate shri. Mardikar further submitted that the action initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate does not fall within the ambit of Section 133, cri. P. C. and in particular the term, "public nuisance" as the complaint initiated by respondent No. 1 and not supported by members of the public as one can understand keeping in view the term of "public nuisance". Therefore, interference by this Court is required in the matter.
(4.) I have perused the record. No doubt, some of the customers of respondent no. 1 had stated that they are unable to stay in the shop of respondent No. 1 for a long time and are required to leave. However, the record shows that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine those persons, i. e. to say the statements recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate appear to be unilateral and thus the procedure followed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not in consonance with the normal procedure to be followed so as to comply with the principles of natural justice.