JUDGMENT D.D. Seth, J. - This reference arises out of proceedings under section 133 of Cr.P.C. 2. The facts of the case are that Ram Chandra, who is the opposite party No. 2 in the reference, filed an application before the learned City Magistrate, Mathura, alleging that the factory run by he applicant was causing him physical discomfort and injury to the health as the applicant was working the factory night and day. Ram Chandra requested the learned City Magistrate to initiate proceedings against the applicant under section 133 of the Cr.P.c. and to prohibit the applicant to run the factory night and day. On getting the application the learned City Magistrate directed the police to make an enquiry and called for a police, report and on getting the police report the leanred Magistrate passed a preliminary order directing the applicant to remove the nuisance and to appear before him to show cause why the order should not be made absolute. Accordingly, both the parties appeared before the Magistrate and produced evidence. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated 8.8.1968 held that the working of the Niwar Factory by the applicant was a public nuisance and that it was causing inconvenience to the public and prohibited the applicant not to work the factory during 10.00 p.m. to 8.00. a.m. 3. Against the order passed by the learned Magistrate the applicant preferred a revision out of which this referred a revision out of which this reference has arisen. The main point on which this reference has been made is that the nuisance caused to Ram Chandra was a private nuisance and was not a public nuisance and was not a public nuisance and hence no order under section 133 of the Cr.P.C. could be passed by the learned City Magistrate. 4. The referring order shows that besides the factory of the applicant there are other factories in the area where Ram Chandra resided and those factorise were also working and except for Ram Chandra and this tenant, no body factory. 4. The referring order shows that besides the factory of the applicant there are other factories in the area where Ram Chandra resided and those factorise were also working and except for Ram Chandra and this tenant, no body factory. It was held by a learned single Judge of this Court in Shri Sansar Kirti Saran v. State through Sahu Shivraj 1951 AWR 630 as follows :- In an action under section 133 Cr.P.C. against an owner of a Printing Press it is necessary for the complainant to show that the working of the Printing Press 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 neighbourhood. Where the only evidence adduced by the complainant under section 133 Cr.P.C. is that health and physical comfort of the complainants family and of another family residing in the building have been adversely affected by the working of the Press at night, held that no order could be made under section 133 Cr.P.C. The facts of the above case are exactly similar to the facts of the present case and in view of the fact that only Ram Chandra and his tenant complained of inconvenience and nuisance and no other person of the locality complained about it; the reference in my view, has been correctly made. 5. After going through the order passed by the court below, I accept the reference and set aside the order of the learned City Magistrate dated 8.8.1968.