V.D.CHATURVEDI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Virendra Singh for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State. Sri Rajeev Sharma the Counsel for the respondent No. 2 is not present even on the revision of the list. I have perused the relevant material available on the record.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that one Ram Dhani (respondent No. 2) gave an application against the revisionist Kashi Nath that the revisionist was running a press machine in the adjoining house; that due to the operation of the said press machine a wall of the complainant's house had weakened and that the press was injurious to the physical comforts of the members of the house as also to the comforts of the members of the locality. After the conditional order under Section 133, Cr.P.C. was passed, the notice was issued to the revisionist, who filed his objection denying any type of injury to the comforts of any person, and added that the act complained of was not the public nuisance. The revisionist Kashi Nath in support of his objection produced three witnesses (1) Ghan Shyam Das, (2) Bhagirathi Prasad, and (3) Sri Beni Prasad. These witnesses stated that they were residing in the same locality but they never felt any discomfort due to the said press machine. The Magistrate, after considering the reports of Nagar Swasthya Adhikari, and of A.D.M.(Protocol) and after considering the objections of the revisionist as well as the evidence adduced in support of such objection, drew the conclusion that the act complained of was within the purview of public nuisance given in Section 133, Cr.P.C. He directed to proceed further and ordered the complainant Ram Dhani (respondent No. 2) to produce his evidence. It is against this order dated 30 -3 -1989 that this revision has been filed.
(3.) IT is not disputed that the conditional order passed under Section 133, Cr.P.C. for the removal of the press was served upon the revisionist. It is further not disputed that the revisionist filed his objection and produced three witnesses in support of his objection. The impugned order was passed at the stage enumerated in sub -section (2) of Section 137 of Cr.P.C. At that stage the Magistrate could have formed any one of the following three opinions : (1) That the evidence led by the revisionist in support of his objection was reliable evidence. (2) That the evidence so led by the revisionist in support of his objection was not reliable evidence. (3) That there was no evidence in support of the objection of the revisionist. ;