Honble SAXENA, J.–This petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 15/10/96 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur, whereby he rejected the criminal revision petition filed by petitioner Jagdish, and maintained the order dated 16/8/96 of the Additional District Magistrate City Jodhpur making absolute the conditional order passed under Section 133(1), Cr.P.C. directing the petitioner not to cause any public nuisance, to desist for keeping cows in his residential premises and further directed him to carry on his business of running a dairy at a place reserved by the Local Authority for such a purpose. (2). Briefly the relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that on 2/9/94, non- petitioner Nos. 2 to 7, who are residents of Sector D, Sastri Nagar, Jodhpur submitted a criminal complaint u/S. 133 Cr.P.C. against petitioner Jagdish, who is residing in plot No. D-2/A, Sastri Nagar, Jodhpur and one Roopa Ram, in whose favour, the U.I.T. Jodhpur had executed a Patta (lease deed) for the said plot for residential purposes, in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate City Jodh- pur, with the averments that Jagdish and Rooparam have put construction on the said plot against the Rules without procuring any permission from appropriate authority. It was averred that they did not leave set-back of 15 ft. width on the rear side of the plot. On the other hand, they have constructed a Pucca Hall measuring 25 ft. x 40 ft. on the rear side of the plot, wherein they are keeping 30-40 cows and are running a dairy; that they have not made any adequate arran- gement for the discharge of the urine and excreta of the cows, with the result, the acid of their urine percolates in the walls of the houses of neighbours which emits bad odour. They also prepared dung cakes on the roof of the said hall, which also give birth to flies and mosquitoes. Thus, they have created such an unhygienic condition and obnoxious atmosphere in the residential colony which has become injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community causing public nuisance. It was further averred that Jagdish and Rooparam have been allotted suitable land in Milk-men Colony for keeping their cattle folk but despite repeated requests of neighbours including non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 7, they have not stopped the said public nuisance. It was further averred that Jagdish and Rooparam have been allotted suitable land in Milk-men Colony for keeping their cattle folk but despite repeated requests of neighbours including non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 7, they have not stopped the said public nuisance. It was, therefore, prayed that proceedings under Section 133, Cr.P.C. be initiated against Jagdish and Rooparam and they be directed to remove their cows from plot No. 2D/A, Sastri Nagar, Jodhpur and to desist from carrying on the occupation of running a dairy there, to shift the same to a place so reserved by the Local Authority and to restore the hygienic condition of the locality immediately. (3). The Additional District Magistrate being prima facie satisfied of the aver- ments made in the criminal complaint, which were supported by an affidavit and documents annexed thereto, and passed a conditional order directing them to desist from carrying on keeping cattle folk and selling their milk in the said pre- mises within seven days and to show cause as to why the conditional order be not made absolute. (4). The petitioner Jagdish and Ruparam despite service of notices and umpteen opportunities did not file and reply. Meanwhile, on the application dated 19.9.94 filed by the non- petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 the learned Additional District Magistrate by order dated 24.9.94 under Section 139, Cr.P.C. appointed the Health Officer, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur as Commissioner to inspect the site in pre sence of the parties and to submit his report. In compliance thereof PW5 Dr. Chiman Singh, Health Officer in presence of the parties inspected the site on 3/10/94, prepared a site plan Ex.C.1, and submitted his report dated 10/10/94 Ex.C.7, wherein he specifically mentioned that at the time of the inspection, he found that 19 cows and 13 baby-cows were found inside the house of petitioner Jagdish situated in plot No. D-2/A Sastri Nagar, Jodhpur, that there was no satisfactory arrangement for the disposal of discharge of the urine and excreta of those cows; that keeping of the said cattle folk there was adversely affecting on the health of the family members of the non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 and other neighbours and that it was also polluting the atmosphere. 2 to 7 and other neighbours and that it was also polluting the atmosphere. The Commissioner fur- ther mentioned in his report that he also noticed that the cow dung cakes were prepared and dried on the roof of the hall as also on the walls, which was a potential cause for giving birth to flies and mosquitoes and that the same could result in out- break of many diseases. (5). After the submission of the report of the Commissioner, petitioner Jag- dish instead of filing any reply to the show cause notice raised an objection of denial, desired to contest the matter and prayed for time to adduce his evidence. He, however, did not file any objection to the Commissioners report. Roopa Ram did not care to file any reply. (6). Petitioner Jagdish examined himself as DW1 and produced DW2 Sumer Singh. However, he did not adduce any documentary evidence. In rebuttal, PW1 Bhanwarlal, PW2 Braham Deo, PW3 Shiv Narain, PW4 PC. Sancheti, PW5 Dr. Chiman Singh, PW6 Sunil Gupta, and PW7 Satya Narain, Photographer were examined and documents Ex.C.1 to C.8 and lease deed of the said plot issued in favour of Roopa Ram were filed. (7). After conducting necessary inquiry, and hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Magistrate by his order dated 16/8/96 foiled down the contention raised by Jagdish that the alleged act complained against him amounted to private nuisance only and held that his actsconstituted public nuisance, Which was injurious to health and physical comfort to the community. He further held that Jagdish was keeping cows in such a huge number in his house situated in a residential colony, that the latter also failed to make adequate arrangements for disposal of the urine and the excreta of the cattle folk, that the cow dung cakes gave rise to generation of flies and mosquitoes. The learned ADM, therefore, made his conditional order absolute and restrained Jagdish from keeping cows in the said premises and to desist from running dairy there and directed him to carry on such a business at a place reserved by the Local Authority within a month from the date of the order. (8). Petitioner Jagdish filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, who transferred the same to the learned Addi- tional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur. (8). Petitioner Jagdish filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, who transferred the same to the learned Addi- tional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the parties and scrutinising the evidence recorded in this case, held that it was a case of public nuisance and that the act of Jagdish by keeping the cows in such a huge number in said carrying on business of the dairy in a residential colony without procuring permission of the Local Authority was injurious to health and physical comfort of the locality. He, therefore, by his order dated 15/10/96 dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order of the ADM. Hence this petition. (9). At the request of the petitioner, Jagdish Municipal Corporation and the Urban Improvement Trust Jodhpur were also arrayed as non-petitioners in this petition. (10). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the lower courts in extenso. (11). Petitioner Jagdish has filed his affidavit alongwith two site plans in this Court. The learned counsel for the non- petitioners have strongly opposed this on the ground that no such additional affidavit or evidence can be taken in proceedings under Section 482, Cr.P.C. It will suffice to mention that as per provisions of Section 391, Cr.P.C., an Appellate Court only is empowered to take further evidence. The provisions of Section 391, Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed into service for adducing additional evidence in petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. (12). In Onkar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (1), in proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. the Magistrate found possession of revisionist and directed that the crop be delivered to first party. The learned Sessions Judge admitted certain evidence in revision and relied upon those documents, which were also not proved as required by law. It was held by the Allahabad High Court that the Revisional Court committed an illegality in admitting those documents, and relying upon such evidence. Therefore, additional affidavit of Jagdish and the site plans filed by him cannot be admitted in evidence at this stage in a procee- ding u/S. 482, Cr.P.C. (13). Shri S.S. Sandhu has strenuously canvassed that only 3-4 residents of Section-D of Sastri Nagar have been examined by non- petitioners and that even all the neighbours of the plot occupied by Jagdish have not been produced. Shri S.S. Sandhu has strenuously canvassed that only 3-4 residents of Section-D of Sastri Nagar have been examined by non- petitioners and that even all the neighbours of the plot occupied by Jagdish have not been produced. In such circumstances, it is only a case of private nuisance and as such provisions of Section 133, Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed into service. He has placed reliance on the decision in Sumer Singh vs. Sanitary Inspector of Bauria (2). In that case, the petitioner was alleged to have caused nuisance by erecting `Khatals on private land close to public road and the accumulated filth thereon resulted in causing inconvenience to users of the road and in affecting the health and sanitation of the neighbourhood. It was held that such an alleged act did not satisfy the requirement of Section 133, Cr.P.C., and the same did not justify an order under that Section. Apparently, the facts of that case were entirely different. Moreover, in that case, vide para 7 it was clearly observed by the Calcutta High Court that the position would be different if the proof was offered that although the petitioner had built the `Khatals on a piece of the private land, nevertheless he was carrying on a trade presumably in milk business in such manner as to injuriously affect the health, sanitation and physical comfort of the community, and although that would imply a different frame of the proceedings, it would be well within the terms of Section 133, Cr.P.C. Therefore, Sumer Singhs case does not come to the rescue of the present petitioner. (14). In the instant case, there is no dispute that Sastri Nagar is a residential colony. As per the conditions of the lease deed issued by the UIT Jodhpur, in respect of the plot occupied by Jagdish, it has been clearly laid down that the said plot of land shall be used by the lessee for the purpose of construction of residen- tial house for private dwelling and for no other purpose and that the building so erected shall be used solely for residential purpose. DW1 Jagdish has admitted that he was keeping cows in the said premise and that in the past he used to sell the 5 maunds milk daily and that now he is keeping only 4-5 cows. But this fact has not been corroborated by any other witness. DW1 Jagdish has admitted that he was keeping cows in the said premise and that in the past he used to sell the 5 maunds milk daily and that now he is keeping only 4-5 cows. But this fact has not been corroborated by any other witness. On the other hand, PW5 Dr. Chi- man Singh, Health Officer, who inspected that site u/S. 139 Cr.P.C. has specifically deposed that at the time of inspection he found 19 cows and 13 baby - cows, which were being kept by petitioner Jagdish in his house, there was no adequate arrangement for the removal of the urine and cow dung, which emitted obnoxious odour and polluted and atmosphere. He further deposed that he found cow dung-cakes being pasted on the roof of the hall and wall of the rooms of petitioners house, which were in semi-solid state and which was the root cause for birth of flies and mosquitoes. His testimony has remained unshaken despite detailed cross examination. PW1 to PW4 and PW 6 to PW7 have fully corroborated his statement. To prove a public nuisance, it was not at all necessary to examine all the inhabitants of the locality. The courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner was causing public nuisance by keeping cattle folk in his residential house, which was injurious to health and physical comfort of the community and that in consequence trade or occupation carried by Jagdish for running dairy needs to be prohibited. These findings of fact are based on record and are not perverse. (15). Shri Sandhu has placed reliance upon the decision in M/s. Shiraz Cinema vs. Srinagar Municipal Council (3), wherein it has been held that unless it is proved that the conduct of any trade or occupation was injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, no action can be initiated under Section 133, Cr.P.C. as it is not the personal comfort or the health of an individual, which is relevant for the purposes of initiating proceedings under the section, but the health or physical comfort of the community. I respectfully agree with this dictum of law. But the facts and the circumstances of the said case were at poles apart with the facts of the case on hand. I respectfully agree with this dictum of law. But the facts and the circumstances of the said case were at poles apart with the facts of the case on hand. Shiraz Cinemas case (supra), an application was filed under Section 133, Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of license of the Proprietor of the Cinema till the generator was removed in order to avoid nuisance to the residents of the area. The said generator was alleged to be causing nuisance to him and his family members as their house was at a distance of 6 ft. from the Cinema. It was held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not a case of nuisance affecting health or physical comfort of the community, and that since the license was issued to run the Cinema, the order of suspension of license was illegal. In the instant case, the non- petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 by adducing voluminous evidence including photographs as also report of the Commissioner, have firmly established that the petitioner by keeping 30-40 cows in his house has caused public nuisance, which was injurious to the health and the physical comfort of the community. Moreover, no license has been issued in favour of the petetioner by the Local Authority to run the dairy in residential colony, like Sastri Nagar, Jodhpur. Therefore, Shiraj Cinemas case (supra) does not render any assistance to the petitioner. (16). Another case relied upon by Shri Sandhu is that of Tara Chand vs. State of Rajasthan(4), wherein certain business men of the viccinity of an Ice Factory submitted a complaint to the S.D.M. that it created nuisance in the locality. The SDM without conducting any inquiry passed a conditional order for closing the Ice Factory with immediate effect. A learned S.B. of this Court held that in that case, the imminent danger as regards public nuisance was emission of ammonia gas from the factory and that the Magistrate under Section 133, Cr.P.C. while issuing conditional order, could have given direction for removal or abatement of the said nuisance, in case he considered public nuisance so imminent and urgent at the time of issuing show cause notice, and that it was not proper for the S.D.M. to have passed an order closing the factory, itself. The learned S.B., therefore, modified the conditional order to the extent that the petitioner would be allowed to run the Ice Factory provided they made proper arrangements to stop the emission of ammonia gas from the factory. The Magistrate was also directed to hold an inquiry on the merits of the case and to pass a final order under Section 138, Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the learned A.D.M. after holding the inquiry has passed the final order directing petitioner Jagdish to stop keeping cattle folk in his residential house and to carry on his occupation of running a dairy at a place reserved by the competent local authority. Therefore, Tara Chands case (supra) also does not render any substantial help to the petitioner. (17). Shri Sandhu has also cited the case of Darwara Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (5). It was a case of alleged obstruction of the way caused to public in general but on inquiry no denial of public right was proved by reliable evidence. It was, therefore, held that it was a case of the obstruction caused to some individual that the same did not amount to public nuisance that such a personal dispute should be decided by the Civil Court. Apparently, such are not the facts of the case in hand. (18). Another contention of Shri Sandhu is that from the evidence it is amply borne out that the petitioner was keeping cows in his house and running the Dairy business for last so many years even prior to the construction of the house in the neighbourhood including those of the non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 7. Therefore, provisions of Section 133, Cr.P.C. ought not to have been pressed into service all of sudden and abruptly. For this, he has placed reliance on the case of Chand vs. State (6), which was decided by me. In that case, the petitioners were running cotton carding machines in the market for last so many years. 2 to 7. Therefore, provisions of Section 133, Cr.P.C. ought not to have been pressed into service all of sudden and abruptly. For this, he has placed reliance on the case of Chand vs. State (6), which was decided by me. In that case, the petitioners were running cotton carding machines in the market for last so many years. The S.D.M. without objectively applying his mind and mentioning that some public nuisance existed by running the said machines and that any of the action of the petitioner was injurious to public health, abruptly passed a conditional order under Section 133(1), Cr.P.C. It was held that the basic ingredients of the conditional order were missing and as such, the impugned order was neither valid nor legal and that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue such an injunction pending inquiry, which tantamount to abuse of process of the Court. It was also held that it is true that no length of user or obstruction can legalise public nuisance and that the alleged nuisance is in existence for several years then all of a sudden and abruptly the provisions of Section 133, Cr.P.C. should not be pressed into service. (19). The facts of the instant case are clearly distinguishable. Moreover, the petitioner has stated that he was keeping only 4-5 cows in his house. This statement is patently false in view of the Commissioners report Ex.C.7. In my consi- dered opinion, the learned A.D.M. after conducting a detailed inquiry has objectively held that the act of the petitioner amounted to public nuisance, which was injurious to health and physical comfort of the community and has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. The impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge also does not warrant any interference. (20). Hence for the reasons mentioned above, in my considered view, it is not at all a fit case, wherein this Court should invoke its inherent powers because the impugned order passed by the courts below neither tantamount to abuse of process of the Court nor are illegal nor without jurisdiction. Consequently this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is devoid of any force and substance. The same is hereby dismissed.