S. M. SONI, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) ). * * * * * ( 3 ) ). . . . . . . . . Perusing the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, it is clear that the case of the petitioner is fully accepted and necessary direction is given to Millcompany. ( 4 ) ). However, Sub-Divisional Magistrate also directed the petitioner- corporation to instal underground drainage line. This part of the order is under challenge in this revision application. ( 5 ) ). The Sub-Divisional Magistrate having found that respondent No. 1 had caused such obstruction or nuisance as alleged by the Corporation, has given a direction to the respondent No. 1 to remove the same. However, sub-Divisional magistrate also gave a direction to the petitioner to construct underground drain. If Court reads Sec. 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is no provision under which cause for such nuisance can be remedied by directing the complainant to take action so that wrong person may not commit a wrong. In the instant case, Mill-company is discharging the polluted water alleging that there are no drain connections, much less drain. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, therefore, directed the complainant to construct drain for discharge of such polluted water. Such is not the requirement of Sec. 133 of Criminal Procedure code; nor is the spirit for removal of obstruction or nuisance. Sec. 133 does not call for any power to Sub-Divisional Magistrate to give direction against the order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Surat. (Only a part of the Judgment approved for reporting is published ). to the petitioner to construct underground drain. If respondent No. 1-company would not comply with the necessary direction, it has to take its own course for compliance of the direction, but for assisting the Mill company to comply with the direction, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot give any direction to the Corporation under any of the provisions of law, much less under Sec. 133 of Criminal Procedure code. Thus, the direction given by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate against the petitioner-Corporation is beyond the jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and, therefore, this part of the order is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 6 ) ). In the result, the revision application is allowed. Thus, the direction given by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate against the petitioner-Corporation is beyond the jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and, therefore, this part of the order is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 6 ) ). In the result, the revision application is allowed. That part of the order, which directs the Corporation to construct drain, i. e. , para 2 of the order, is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. .