JUDGMENT In the memo of revision and during the course of arguments it has been submitted by the learned counsel (i) that the order is final in its nature because there is no conditional order under section 133 (2) of the Cr. P.C. (ii) that the closure of the factory has been directed without giving the petitioner proper opportunity to explain and (iii) that in view of coming into force of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 which provides for the machinery of examination, control and prosecution on failure 'of the compliance of the provisions of law and the directions of the Pollution Control Board constituted under the Act; the S.D.M. could not have exercised powers under section 133 of Cr. P.C.. They have also not been given some time to prevent the flow of alleged contaminated effluent. Held: Learned counsel for State has objected as to the maintainability of the revision under the interim order. In view of the arguments advanced by the counsel for petitioner' and the State, the first point to be determined is as to whether the revision is maintainable. No doubt sub-section (2) of Section 397 of Cr. P.C. puts a bar against the exercise of revisional power in relation to any interlocutory order. But on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the petitioner has been directed to close the factory (Brewery) with immediate effect. This order, therefore, has become final to that extent. What was required in the case was that the S.D.M. ought to have issued a notice to show cause as to why the discharge of effluent which is contaminated be not stopped; and in consequence thereof and on a failure of stopping the discharge of contaminated effluent the factory may not be directed to be closed. Learned Magistrate has without giving the petitioner an opportunity to explain and without giving them any time to stop the contaminated effluent, has directed closure of the factory itself. Thus, this order has become final to that extent and therefore, the revision is maintainable. It is incumbent upon the Magistrate taking congnizance to make a conditional order and he is further required to fix a time for removal of any nuisance including the stoppage of discharge of effluent. The Magistrate is further required to get the notice served as per provisions of section 134 of Cr. It is incumbent upon the Magistrate taking congnizance to make a conditional order and he is further required to fix a time for removal of any nuisance including the stoppage of discharge of effluent. The Magistrate is further required to get the notice served as per provisions of section 134 of Cr. P.C. thereafter the notice is required to show-cause or obey the order. If the public right is denied or the fact of nuisance is denied the same has to be enquired in accordance with section 138 of Cr. P.C. and thereafter a final order is required to be made. Learned Magistrate has not followed this procedure and therefore, this order cannot be maintained. Now so far as the third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is true that the water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 provides for constitution of Pollution Control Boards, defines powers and functions of the Boards and further assigns duties for prevention and control of Water Pollution, certain penalties and procedure has also been provided for the failure to comply the directions. The rules framed under the Act also provide that the industries are required to take No-objection Certificate from the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution Board. But that does not mean that the powers of the S.Q.M. under section 133 or section 134 of Cr. P.C. has been taken away. Both the authorities can exercise powers, which are different in nature. Sub-divisional Magistrate is required to take preventive action. That order can be challenged before the appropriate authority. Right and title are not to be decided by Sub-Divisional Magistrate while taking such executive action. It is limited in nature. Duty of Board is to have general control and supervision. It has power of prosecution and for taking such other action as has been provided in the Act. Thus both the authorities have different scope-of working. In the opinion of this Court Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act has not taken away powers of S.D.M. under Sec. 133 of Cr. P.C. The S.D.M. has power to pass order to close a factory causing pollution if the certificate from the Pollution Control Board is not produced. Thus both the authorities have different scope-of working. In the opinion of this Court Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act has not taken away powers of S.D.M. under Sec. 133 of Cr. P.C. The S.D.M. has power to pass order to close a factory causing pollution if the certificate from the Pollution Control Board is not produced. If the Certificate or a no-objection certificate is not produced by the industry or the factory concerned within the time granted by the S.D.M. while passing the final order the Magistrate is empowered to issue direction for closing of the factory or the industry as the case ma y be. This may not be out of place to mention it here that if any adverse report from the Pollution Control Board is received a copy of the same shall be supplied to the petitioner who is owner of the Brewery and shall be further allowed to cross-examine the witness or the witnesses who were party to the examination and to the preparation of report. . It is after taking the evidence from both the sides the S.D.M. is required to come to a final decision. In view of the' discussion above the impugned order cannot be maintained. Hence, this revision is partly accepted. The order impugned is set-aside and the case is further remanded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to deal with the case in accordance with law.