JUDGMENT P.L. Bhargava, J. - This application in revision has been filed by Shri Sansar Kirti Saran (who will hereby be described as the applicant), and it is directed against an order made by the City Magistrate of Moradabad, in a proceeding u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, initiated by Sahu Shivraj Saran (who will hereby be described as the opposite-party) on February 2, 1950. 2. The opposite-party is the owner of a double strayed building in mohalla Chaumukhapul in the city of Moradabad. In July, 1941. he had let out a portion of the said building, in the ground floor. to the applicant, who established therein a printing press known as the Prabhat Press'. The machines installed in the press are worked by one horse power electric motor. 3. On February 2, 1950, the opposite party filed an application in the Court of the City Magistrate of Moradabad stating that the press was being worked until mid-night, and the sound created by the working of the machinery had rendered it impossible for the occupants of the building and of the houses in the neighborhood to have sound sleep in the night and that the same was causing injury to their health and also physical discomfort. He further stated that the applicant was working the press during the night against the provisions of the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. The applicant denied these allegations. 4. The Magistrate called for a report from the inspector of Shops and Commercial Establishment; and thereafter inspected the site on the 13th March, 1950. In the order sheet he recorded the following order on the 14th March, 1950 : I have inspected the site on 13th March, 1950. The press is being run daily till about 10 p. m. and there is, noise when it is being worked causes nuisance to the complainant and his family who reside in the same premises. Let a notice be, therefore, issued to the opposite-party to remove the nuisance (i. e. they should not work the press from 7 p. m. to 7 a. m.) within 15 days from the service of this order, or he should show cause against this, 'otherwise the order will be made absolute and the nuisance will be got stopped through the Police. 5. The applicant filed various objections and the parties produced their evidence. 5. The applicant filed various objections and the parties produced their evidence. After considering the evidence on the record the learned Magistrate recorded the following findings (1) The opposite-party used to live away from the city and did not occupy the residential portion of the building for several years after a portion thereof had been let out to the applicant; (2) formerly the press was not worked during the night ; (3) the working of the press during night hours was really a nuisance and those who were living quite close to the room in which the press machine was fitted could not have Pound sleep/ and it was also a nuisance to the neighbors; (4) the working of the press till late hours at night was a public nuisance. 6. Accordingly, the Magistrate made an order directing the applicant to refrain from working his preS3 from 9 p, m. to 6 a. m, and to regulate accordingly the working hours of the press. Subject to this order of the Preliminary order made on the 14th March, 1950 was made absolute. 7. The applicant filed a revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Moradabad. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the finding of the Magistrate that the working of the press at night amounts to a public nuisance and upheld the order which was challenged in revision 8. In this revision learned counsel for the applicant, Sansar Kirti Saran, has contended that on the facts proved in the case the Magistrate erred in recording a finding that the working of the press was "injurious to the, health or physical comfort of the community" ; and that the evidence established was that the complainant's family, another tenant residing in the same building and a person living in the neighborhood were adversely affected. 9. Section 133 is the first section in Chapter. X of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to public nuisances. The section provides that- Whenever a District Magistrate; a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class considers, on receiving a police report or other information and on taking such evidence. 9. Section 133 is the first section in Chapter. X of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to public nuisances. The section provides that- Whenever a District Magistrate; a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class considers, on receiving a police report or other information and on taking such evidence. if any, as he thinks fit...that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping of any goods or merchandise, is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited....such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person...carrying on such trade or occupation...to desist from carrying on, or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such trade or occupation.... 10. In the relevant portion of the section the word 'public' has not been used. The used is 'community'. In the context in turn which the term has been used it must be taken to mean a section of the public affected by the, alleged nuisance. The term will have to be interpreted in each case with reference to the facts of that particular case, but certainly it cannot be interpreted to. mean a particular individual or inmates of the same building. In the present case, action was taken under this section because it was held that the neighbors were also adversely affected. 11. The trial Court has referred to a decision of this Court in Raghunandan Prasad v. King Emperor 1931 A.L.J. 912, where it was held that the legislature did not' really intend to discriminate between the public and the community ; and that there was no reason for distinguishing the meaning of the word "community' either from the 'public' or the neighbors'. With due deference, I may point out that in Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Legislature has used both the words 'public' and 'community' and, in my opinion, the two words have boon used in different sense. There is another expression in the section, namely 'persons living or carrying on business in the neighborhood", which refers to neighbors. There is another expression in the section, namely 'persons living or carrying on business in the neighborhood", which refers to neighbors. When there is a question of removal of any unlawful obstruction or nuisance from any river or channel which is or may be lawfully rued by the public, or from any public place ; or when there is the question of fencing any tank, well or excavation adjacent to any public way or public pleas to prevent danger arising to the public, the public in general must be affected on the other hand, when the conduct of any trade or occupation or the keeping of any goods or merchandise is injurious to the health or physical comfort, and it is necessary to prohibit and regulate the same, it would be sufficient if the formality or, in other words a section of the public is affected ; and when the construction of any building or the disposal of any substance is likely to occasion, conflagration or expression, and it must be prevented or stopped, or where any building, tent, structure or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fill and thereby cause injury to parsons living or carrying on business in the neighborhood or passing by, it must be removed, repaired or supported, the section, of the public to be affected will only be the neighbors or passers by. Therefore the terns 'public', 'community or 'neighbors' must be deemed to have been used in the section in different senses, with reference to particular kind of nuisance complained of. The term 'public' will include both 'community and 'neighbors' and the word 'community' has been used in the section to include a particular section of the public including, neighbors. 12. In Lal Man v. Bishambhar Nath 1933 A.L.J. B. 49 a person had been working a lime kiln in a particular locality for about 45 years under a license obtained from the local municipality, Another person came and deliberately occupied a house in the locality in a position where he was liable to be inconvenienced by the smoke and the smell of the kiln. On a motion by the latter the Magistrate ordered that the kiln should be stopped. On a motion by the latter the Magistrate ordered that the kiln should be stopped. The order made by the Magistrate was set aside by this Court and it was pointed out that a Magistrate was empowered u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order a burner of the lime to regulate his business in a manner that it might not be injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community. and that it was generally inexpedient that a Magistrate should take action in such cases, for these matters are left by the Legislature to the control of the municipal boards. It would thus appear that the principle recognized in that case was that it is the community and not the individual whose health and physical comfort should, be affected. 13. In two earlier decisions of this Court in Earn Dayal Misra v. Jagdamba Debi AIR All. 443 and Ramu v. Murli Das AIR Allah. 19 it was pointed out that the proceedings u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not intended to settle private disputes between different members of the public, and that they are intended to protect the pubic as a whole against the inconvenience. 14. In a recent case reported in Dwarika Prosad and Others Vs. Dr. B.K. Roy Choudhury and Others, AIR 1950 Cal 349 it has been held by the Calcutta High Court that the word 'community' cannot be taken to mean residents of a particular house and that the term means residents of a particular house ; and that the term means something mere than that, it means the public at large or the residents of an entire locality. The facts of that case were somewhat similar to those of the present case. In that case the complaint related to the working of a refrigerator for making isocheim which caused noise. It was found that the working of the refrigerator at night in a congested area did constitute the nuisance to the residents of the building whose plots were adjacent to the place where the refrigerator was being worked. This sort of nuisance to the residents of a particular house was not held to be sufficient to justify an action u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal procedure. 15. This sort of nuisance to the residents of a particular house was not held to be sufficient to justify an action u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal procedure. 15. Therefore, in the present case, in order to justify an action u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it ought to have been shown that the working of the printing press of the applicant was injurious to the health and caused physical discomfort to the members of the community ; that is to say, the section of the public residing in the neighborhood. 16. All that has been proved in this case is that the health and physical comfort of the complainant's family and of another family residing in the building have been adversely affected. There is also the evidence of a person, residing at a distance of about 20 paces from the building, who has stated that on account of the noise caused by the working of the press he and his family are disturbed in their sleep during the night. That person, however, made no grievance on this account before the opposite-party moved the City Magistrate. He was examined in Court on the 2lst April, 1950, and he stated that he spoke to the opposite-party about the nuisance for the first tim6 two months back. The opposite-party had moved the Court on February 2, 1950. Apart from it, he stated that the press was being worked till 10 or 11 p, m. which would show that the press is not worked until very late in the night so as to disturb the people in their sleep. This witness had to admit that no one else ever' complained to him about the nuisance. On the other hand, we find two persons residing in adjacent houses coming forward to depose that they were not in any way inconvenienced by the Working of the press. Consequently, there is no evidence - worth the name, on the record, to show that the working of the press is injurious to the health of or Causes physical discomfort to the persons residing in the locality, which is admittedly a thickly populated area, In the absence of any evidence to show that the working of the press was injurious to the health or physical discomfort of the community, the order made cannot be justified. 17. 17. Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the preliminary order, dated the 14th March, 1950, and the final order, dated July 15, l953, passed by the City Magistrate of Moradabad are set aside.