Judgment :- The Assistant Health Officer, Circle IV, Corpn. of Madras, Madras-3 - the respondent herein inspected M/s. Kumaran Theatre, Kolathur, Madras-99 on 22-8-1987. The proprietor of the said theatre is one Chinnadurai Nadar, the petitioner herein. The respondent launched a prosecution by filing a complaint against the petitioner before the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras for the his omission to comply with the provisions of Rule 64 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules'), who took it on file as N.M.S.T.C. No. 43 of 1988. 2. On receipt of process, the petitioner came forward with the present action invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge the following points for consideration :- (1) Though the respondent is designated as an Inspecting Authority among other personnel specified in Rule 8 of the Rules, yet he is not empowered to launch a prosecution for breach of any of the provisions of the said Rules, inclusive of Rule 64 therein. (2) Even otherwise, the materials furnished in the complaint in the shape of the allegations narrated therein are grossly insufficient and inadequate as to launch a prosecution even for violation or refraction of the provisions of the Tamil nadu Public Health Act (III of 1939) (for short 1939 Act'). 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would however repel such submissions. 5. I may now delve deep into the facts of the case to record a finding on the rival submissions of either Counsel. 6. The Rules are framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu u/S. 10 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act IX of 1955 - for short 1955 Act'). Rule 64(1) of the Rules is in the following terms. "64. (1) The licensees shall provide sufficient and approved artificial means of ventilation whenever required by the licensing authority. Artificial means of ventilation shall include provision of exhaust fans. The standard for ventilation shall be 28 cubic metre of fresh air per seat per hour." * The said rules makes provision for artificial means of ventilation whenever required by the licensing authority. Such artificial means of ventilation shall include provision of exhaust fans. The rule also gives a guideline for the standard for ventilation. Such standard shall be 28 cubic metre of fresh air per seat per hour. Such artificial means of ventilation shall include provision of exhaust fans. The rule also gives a guideline for the standard for ventilation. Such standard shall be 28 cubic metre of fresh air per seat per hour. 7. The grievance of the respondent, as revealed by the averments in the complaint, is that the said rule had been observed more in breach than in compliance by the petitioner, in the sense of not making sufficient artificial means of ventilation. He had simply stated in the complaint as to the non-observance of the rules by the petitioner. He did not at all give other particulars as to how he came to a conclusion that the said rule had not at all been complied with. Even assuming for argument's sake the said rule had not been complied with by the petitioner, it is argued that for such retraction or violation, the respondent cannot at all launch a prosecution and if at all, he should as an inspecting authority, draw the attention of the licensing authority for necessary action as per the salient provisions adumbrated. 8. No doubt, Rule 8 says that the inspecting authority should draw the attention of the licensing authority, in case of any breach for necessary action. If the attention of the licensing authority is drawn as to any breach of the rules, it is open to the licensing authority either to revoke or suspend the licence u/S. 9 of the 1955 Act or to launch a prosecution before a competent Court, which is empowered to impose penalties as had been provided for u/S. 8. Undoubtedly, the respondent - the inspecting authority in this case, had not at all drawn the attention of the licensing authority for the breach made by the petitioner of Rule 64 and he himself launched a prosecution. The moot question to be decided here is as to whether such a course, as adopted by the respondent, is legally permissible. 9. To answer this question, it is but necessary to refer to certain provisions of the 1939 Act. The moot question to be decided here is as to whether such a course, as adopted by the respondent, is legally permissible. 9. To answer this question, it is but necessary to refer to certain provisions of the 1939 Act. S. 3(25) of the said Act defines 'nuisance' and it is couched as under :- "'Nuisance' includes any act, omission, place or thing which causes or is likely to cause injury, danger, annoyance or offence to the sense of sight, smell or hearing or disturbance to rest or sleep or which is or may be dangerous to life or injurious to the health or property of the public or the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or persons who may have occasion to use any public right." * 10. Section 41 figuring in Chapter VI dealing with abatement of nuisance prescribes certain things to be deemed to be 'nuisance' for the purpose of that Chapter. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 41 is relevant for our purpose and it runs thus. "41. Certain things to be nuisances - Without prejudice to the generality of the definition of the expression "nuisance" contained in clause (25) of S. 3, the following shall be deemed specifically to be nuisances for the purposes of this Chapter :- (1) any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance; ...." * 11. Section 44 deals with power of the Health Officer to abate nuisance. It runs as follows. "44. Power to Health Officer to abate nuisance. Section 44 deals with power of the Health Officer to abate nuisance. It runs as follows. "44. Power to Health Officer to abate nuisance. If the Health Officer is satisfied, whether upon information given u/S. 43 or otherwise of the existence of a nuisance, he may, by notice require the person by whose act, default or sufferance the nuisance arises or continues or, if that person cannot be found, the owner or occupier of the premises on which the nuisance arises or continues, to abate the nuisance and to execute such works and take such as may be necessary for that purpose."" Provided that - (a) where the nuisance arises from any defect of a structural character, the notice shall be served on the owner of the premises; and (b) where the person causing the nuisance cannot be found and it is clear that the nuisance does not arise or continue by the act, default or sufferance of the owner or the occupier of the premises, the Health Officer may himself forthwith do what he consider necessary to abate the nuisance and to prevent a recurrence thereof." * 12. Section 45 deals with the power of local authority to abate nuisance and it is in the following terms. "45. Power of local authority to abate nuisanece. - If the person, on whom a notice to abate a nuisance has been served u/S. 44, makes default in complying with any of its requirements within the time specified therein, or if the nuisance although abated within such time is, in the opinion of the local authority, likely to recur on the same premises, the local authority may arrange for the execution of any works necessary to abate the nuisance or to prevent its recurrence, as the case may be, and may recover the cost from the such person as if it were a tax due to the local authority." * 13. Section 138 dealing with the cognizance of offences against the Act indicates various personnel, who are competent to launch prosecution against persons violating the provisions of this Act and it is as follows :- "138. Cognizance of offences against the Act. Section 138 dealing with the cognizance of offences against the Act indicates various personnel, who are competent to launch prosecution against persons violating the provisions of this Act and it is as follows :- "138. Cognizance of offences against the Act. - No person shall be tried for any offence against the provisions of this Act, or of any rule, or by-law made under it, unless complaint is made within three months of the commission of the offence, by the police, or the executive authority or the Health Officer, or by a person expressly authorised in this behalf by the local authority, the executive authority or the Health OfficerProvided that nothing contained in this section shall affect the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, in regard to the power of certain Magistrates to take cognizance of offences upon information received or upon their own knowledge or suspicion." * 14. Section 134 makes provision for penalties for offences against the Act. Subclause (1)(c) of S. 134, which is relevant for our purpose is couched in the following terms :- "134. Penalties for offences against Act, etc. - (1) whoever - (c) fails to comply with any direction lawfully given to him, or any requisition lawfully made upon him, under or in pursuance of any of the said provisions, shall be punished with fine, which may extend to the amount mentioned in that behalf in the fourth columns of the said schedule." * 15. From the various provisions of the 1939 Act, as extracted above, it is rather crystal clear that the respondent, who is a Health Officer is empowered to launch prosecution against persons who happened to violate the provisions of this Act. From the definition of 'nuisance' as adumbrated under Ss. 3(25) and 41(1), it is abundantly clear that non-making of sufficient provision for artificial ventilation inside the auditorium of a theatre being injurious to public health is 'nuisance' and in order to abate such nuisance, power is there for the respondent u/S. 44. 16. From the definition of 'nuisance' as adumbrated under Ss. 3(25) and 41(1), it is abundantly clear that non-making of sufficient provision for artificial ventilation inside the auditorium of a theatre being injurious to public health is 'nuisance' and in order to abate such nuisance, power is there for the respondent u/S. 44. 16. Under S. 45 of the 1939 Act, on the report of a nuisance, what is required to be done is a notice has to be given to the person stated to be committing the nuisance to abate the same within a specified time and if the nuisance was not abated within such time as specified by the authority, he is said to have violated the provisions of the said Act, giving rise to a cause for the initiation of criminal proceedings for such violations. 17. The whole difficulty in the case on hand is that the respondent had not at all given any notice to the petitioner for abatement or removal of the nuisance, within a specified time. What is further worse is, as already indicated, he had not particularised in what way the petitioner had committed the nuisance, in the sense of not giving adequate particulars in the complaint. 18. From the provisions of the 1939 Act as well as the 1955 Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it is abundantly clear that the omission of making sufficient artificial means of ventilation inside the auditorium of the theatre is prosecutable u/S. 8 of the 1955 Act or u/S. 134 of the 1939 Act. 19. At this juncture it is quite relevant to refer to the provisions adumbrated u/S. 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and it provides that where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. 20. Admittedly the petitioner had not been prosecuted for violation of the provisions of the 1955 Act. The allegations in the complaint, thought refers to R. 64 of the Rules, yet the totality of the allegations made in the complaint would make it appear that the prosecution is one under the provisions of the 1939 Act. 20. Admittedly the petitioner had not been prosecuted for violation of the provisions of the 1955 Act. The allegations in the complaint, thought refers to R. 64 of the Rules, yet the totality of the allegations made in the complaint would make it appear that the prosecution is one under the provisions of the 1939 Act. As already indicated, the respondent had not at all issued any notice to the petitioner requiring him to abate or remove the nuisance so caused within a specified time and that apart, no adequate particulars had been furnished in the from of allegations in the complaint regarding how the nuisance had been committed. In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. It is also made clear that the respondent - the Health Officer is entitled to inspect the theatre of the petitioner and if he is satisfied about the existence of the nuisance injurious to the health of the viewers, he can initiate prosecution for such refraction or violation21. In the result, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings intiated against the petitioner in N.M.S.T.C. No. 43 of 1988 on the file of the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras shall stand quashed.