Holding

Section 133 Cr.P.C. is not impliedly repealed by the Water and Air Pollution Acts; the statutes can coexist and any conflict must be addressed by the appropriate forum.

Summary

The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the closure orders issued by a Sub‑Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd. for alleged water and air pollution. The High Court held that the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 had impliedly repealed Section 133, rendering the magistrate’s order ultra vires. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the doctrine of implied repeal, the distinct objects of the three statutes, and the meaning of "nuisance" under each. It concluded that the two pollution Acts are special statutes dealing with prevention, control and penalisation of pollution, while Section 133 is a preventive measure against public nuisance; the statutes operate in different fields and can coexist. Consequently, there is no implied repeal of Section 133, and any conflict between the statutes must be resolved by the appropriate forum. The Court partly allowed the appeals, overturning the High Court’s finding of implied repeal.

Issues considered

Whether the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 impliedly repeal Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Whether the provisions of the three statutes are in direct conflict or occupy the same field of regulation.
Whether the doctrine of implied repeal applies when later statutes are not expressly repealing earlier ones.
Whether the question of infraction between Section 133 and the pollution Acts should be decided by the magistrate or by the appropriate environmental forum.

Legislation cited

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981s. 18, s. 20, s. 22-A
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 133
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974s. 30, s. 32, s. 33

Subjects

Section 133 Cr.P.C.implied repealpublic nuisanceenvironmental lawWater Pollution ActAir Pollution Actstatutory interpretationcoexistence of statutespollution controlmagistrate jurisdiction

Judgment

STATE OF M.P. A
v.
KEDIA LEATHER AND LIQUOR LTD. /.lli!D ORS .

.. AUGUST 19, 2003

[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA YAT, JJ.] B

Environmental Law:

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974/Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- C
Section 133:

Section 133 Cr.P.C-Public nuisance-Ptovisions of law under Section
133 vis-a-vis under .Water Act and Air Act-Effect thereto-Repeal of the
provisions of law by implication-Scope of-Held: Aims, objects and area of D
operation of Pollution Acts and provisions oflaw under Cr. P. C. are dijferent-
A/leviate nuisance but not of identical nature-No impediment for their co-
existence-Doctrine of implied repeal not attracted-Issue regarding non-
existence of infraction between Section 133 of the Code and the two Acts
should be dealt with by the appropriate forum-Interpretation of Statutes.
E
Doctrines:

Doctrine of implied repeal-Applicability of

Words and Phrases:

'Nuisance'-Meaning of in the context of Section 133 Cr.P.C, Water
F
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Air (Prevention and Control
of Pollution) Act.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate initiated proceedings in terms of Section
133 Cr.P.C. against the respondent-industries for causing pollution thereby G
causing public nuisance and directed them to close their industrial units.
Aggrieved, responde:its moved the mgh Court. The High Court held that after
introduction of the Water (Prevention and Control) Act and the Air (Prevention
and Control) Act, there was implied repeal of Section 133 Cr.P.C. Hence the
present appeals by the State.
H
727
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The object and purpose behind Section 133 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is essentially to prevent public nuisance and involves a
sense of urgency in the sense that if the Magistrate fails to take recourse
immediately irreparable damage would be done to the public. One significant
B factor to be noticed is that the person against whom action is taken is not an
accused within the meaning of Section 133 of the Code and proceedings are
not the proceedings in respect of offences. The Water Act and the Air Act -·
are characteristically special statutes. The two statutes relate to prevention
and control of pollution and also provides for penal consequences in case of
C breach of statutory provisions. (732-C, E, F)

Vasant Manga Nikumb and Ors. v. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu
(deceased) by Lrs. and Anr., (1995) Supp. 4 SCC 54, referred to.

Halsbury 's Laws of England, referred to.
D 1.2. There is presumption against a repeal by implication that the reason
of the rule is based on the theory that the Legislature while enacting a law
has a complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject matter,
and therefore, when it does not provide a repealing provision, the intention is
clear not to repeal the existing legislation. When the new Act contains a
E repealing section mentioning the Acts which it expressly repeals, the
presumption against implied repeal of other laws is further strengthened on
the principle expressio unius (persone vel rei) est exclusio alterius. (The
express intention of one person or thing is the exclusion of another). The
continuance of existing legislation, in the absence of an express provision of
repeal by implication lies on the party asserting the same. The presumption
F is, however, rebutted and a repeal is inferred by necessary implication when
the provisions of the later Act are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the
provisions of the earlier Act and that the two cannot stand together. But, if
the two can be read together and some application can be made of the words
in the earlier Act, a repeal will not be inferred. (733-C-El
G Municipal Council, Palai through the Commissioner of Municipal
Council, Palai v. /.J. Joseph, AIR (1963) SC 1561; Northern India Caterers
(Private) Ltd and Anr. v. State of Pubjab and Anr., AIR (1967) SC 1581;
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv Shanker, (1971) 1 SCC 442; Ratan
Lal Adukia and Anr. v. Union of India, AIR (1990) SC 104 and R.S. Raghunath
H v. State of Karnataka and Anr., AIR (1992) SC 81, referred to.
STATEOFM.P. v. KEDIALEATHERANDLIQUORLTD. 729
Garnett v. Bradley, (1878) 3 AC 944 (HL) and A.G. Moore (1878) 3 Ex. A
D 276, referred to.

1.3. The doctrine of implied repeal is based on the theory that the
Legislature, which is presumed to know the existing law, did not intend to
create any confusion by retaining conflicting provisions and, therefore, when
the Court applies the doctrine, it does not more than give effect to tlfe intention B
of the Legislature by examining the scope and the object <>fthe two enactments
and by a comparison of their provbions. The matter in each case is one of
construction and comparison of the two statutes. The Court leans against
implying a repeal. (734-8, CJ

Pt. Rishikesh and Anr. v. Sa/ma Begum (Smt.), (1995) 4 SCC 718 and C
Shri A.B. Krishna and Ors. v. The State of Karnataka and Ors., JT (19,8) 1
SC 613, referred to.

Statute law, Seventh Edition, Page 366, with reference to Re: Berry
(1936) Ch. 274 by Craies, referred to.

1.4. To determine whether a later statute repeals by implication an
D
earlier it is necessary to scrutinize the terms and consider the true meaning
and effect of the earlier A«:t. Until this is done, it is impossible to ascertain
whether any inconsistency exists between the two enactments. The area of
operation in the Code and the pollution laws in question are different with
wholly different aims and objects; and though they alleviate nuisance, that is E
not of identical nature. They operate in their respective fields and there is no
impediment for their co-existence. [734-D, E)

2.1. The provisions of Section 133 of the Code are in the nature of
preventive measures, the provisions contained in the two Acts viz. The Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and the Air (Prevention and Control F
of Pollution) Act are not only curative but also preventive and penal. The
provisions appear to be mutually exclusive and the question of one replacing
the other does not arise. The High Court was not justified in holding that
there was any implied repeal of Section 133 of the Code. [734-E, F)

2.2. The question regarding existence/non-existence of infraction G
between Section 133 of the Code and the two Acts should be dealt with by the
appropriate forum and this Court does not express any opinion in that.regard.
(734-G,H}

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 151-
158of1996. H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.<,:.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 16.3S1 of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Crl.RNos. 117/90, 1S6, 157, 181, 183, 193, 178191 and Miscellaneous
Crl. Case No. :i53 of 1991.

Sakesh Kumar for Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, S.K. 'Agnihotri and Rohit
K. Singh for the Appellant.
B
Vij;iy Panjwani for Central pollution Control Board.

S.K. Gambhir, K.K. Mohan, Anil Sharma and Awanish Sinha for the
Respondents.

The Judgment. of the Court was deliveri::d by
c
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. View expressed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh,
Jabalpur Bench at Indore holding that after introduction of the Water
(Preve:ltion and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (~•er~inafter referred to as the
'Water Act') and the Air (Prevention and Control of PCillution) Act, .1981
D (hereinafter referred to as the 'Air Act'), there was implied repeal of Section
133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ttie 'Code'), is questioned
in these appeals.

Factual background needs to be noted in brief as legal issues of pristine
nature are involved. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as
E the 'SDM') of the area concerned served orders in terms of Section i33 of
the Code directing the respondents who owned industrial units to close their
industries on the allegation that serious pollution was created by discharge
of effluent from their respective factorie:> and thereby a public nuisance was
caused. The preliminary issues and the proceedings initiated by the SDM
were questioned by the respondents herein before the High Court under
F Section 397 of thi:: Code.

The main plank of their arguments before the High Court was that by
enactment of the Water Act and the Air Act there was implied repeal of
Section 133 of the Code.

G The plea was contested by the SOM on the ground that the provisions
of the Water Act and the Air Act operate in different fields, and, therefore,
the question of Section 133 of the Code getting eclipsed did not arise. The
High Court referred to various provisions of the Water Act and the Air Act
and compared their scope of operation with Section 133 of the Code.

H The High Comt was of the view that the provisions of the Water an~
STATEOFM.P. v. Y.EDIALEATHERANDLIQUORLTD. [PASAYAT,J.] 731
the Air Acts are in essence elaboration and enlargement of the powers A
conferred under Section 133 of the Code. Water and Air pollution were held
to be species of nuisance or 0f the conduct of trades or occupation injuries
to the health or physical comfort to the community. As they deal with special
• types of nuisance, they ruled out operation of Section 133 of the Code. It was
concluded that existence and working of the two parallel provisions would B
result m... only in inconvenience but also absurd results. In the ultimate. it
was held that the provisions of the Water and Air Acts impliedly repealed the
provisions of jection 13~ of the Code, so far as allegations of public nuisance
by air and wafer pollution by industries or persons covered by the two Acts
are concerned. As a consequenc~, it was held that the SDM had no jurisdiction
to act under Section 133 of the Code. C
Learned cumisel· for the appellant-State submitted that the view
expressed by the High Court is not legally tenable. The three statutes operate
in different fields and even though there may be some ·amount of over-
lappin~, they can co-exist. A statutory provision cannot be held to have been
repealed impliedly by the Court. Learned counsel for the respondents-units D
submitted tha~ this Court had occasion to pass interim orders on 2. l.200 l.
Exception was taken to the manner of functioning of the Madhya Pradesh
Pollution Control Board (in short the 'Board') and directions were given to
take necessary action against the delinquent officials. Proceedings were initiatt:d
and on the 1'asis of the reports filed by the functionaries of the reconstituted E
Board, functio11ing of the factories had been discontinued. The legality of the
proceedings and the orders passed therein have been questioned and the
3oard has been moved for grant of necessary pemtission for making the
factories functional. in ti.is background it is submitted that the issues raised
have really be..om.:: academic. Though, learned counsel for the appellant-State
and the Board accepted the position to be factually tn.e, it is submitted that F
consicie.ring the impact of the decision which would have. far reaching
conseciuences, the legal issues may be decided and appropriate dire~tions
shoulr' be given so far as the functioning or closure of the factories aspect
is concerned.

Section 133 of the Code apr "ars in Chapt(;r X of the Code which deals G
with maintenance of public order ar.d tranquility. It is a part of the heading
'public nuisance'. The term 'nuisance' as used in law is not a. term capable
of exact definition and it has been pointed out in Halsbury's Laws of England
that "even at the pre.sent day there is not entire agreement as to ·whether
certain acts or omissions shall be classed as nuisances or whether they do H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A not rather fall under other divisions of the law of tort". In Vasant Manga
Nikumba and Ors. v. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu (deceased) by Lrs. and Anr.,
[ 1995] Supp.4 SCC 54 it was observed that nuisance is an inconvenience
which materially interferes with the ordinary physical comfort of human
existence. It is not capable of precise definition. To bring in application of
B Section 133 of the Code, there must be imminent danger to the property and
consequential nuisance to the public. The. nuisance is the concomitant act
resulting in danger to the life or property due to likely collapse etc. The object
and purpose behind Section 133 of the Code is essentially to prevent public
nuisance and involves a sense of urgency in the sense that if the Magistrate
fails to take recourse immediately irreparable damage would be done to the
C public. It applies to a condition of the nuisance at the time when the order
is passed and it is not intended to apply to future likelihood or what may
happen at some later point of time. It does not deal with all potential nuisance,
and on the other hand applies when the nuisance is in existence. It has to
be noted that some times there is a confusion between Section 133 and
D Section 144 of the Code. While the latter is more general provision the former
is more specific. While the order under the former is conditional, the order
under the latter is absolute. The proceedings are more in the nature of civil
proceedings than criminal proceedings.

One significant factor to be noticed is that person against whom action
E is taken is not an accused within the meaning of Section 133 of the Code. He
can give evidence on his own behalf and may be examined on oath. Proceedings
are not the proceedings in respect of offences. The Water Act and the Air
Act are characteristically special statutes.

The two statutes relate to prevention and control of pollution and also
p provides for penal consequences in case of breach of statutory provisions.
Environmental, ecological air and water pollution amount to violation of right
to life assured by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the
Constitution'). Hygienic environment is an integral facet of healthy life. Right
to live with human dignity becomes illusory in the absence of humane and
healthy environment.
G
Chapter V of the Water Act deals with prevention and control of water
pollution. Similarly, Chapter IV of the Air Act deals with prevention and
control of air pollution. Sections 30, 32 and 33 of the Water Act deal with
power of the Sta.te Board to carry out certain works, emergency measures in
H certain cases and power. of Board to make application to the Courts for
STATEOFM.P. v. KEDIALEATHERANDLIQUORLTD. [PASAYAT,J.] 733

restraining apprehended pollution respectively. Sections 18, 20 and 22-A of A
the Air Act deal with power to give directions, power to give instructions for
ensuring standards and power of Board to make application to Court for
,. restraining persons from causing air pollution respectively.

The provisions of Section 133 of the Code can be culled in aid to
remove public nuisance caused by effluent of the discharge and air discharge B
causing hardship to the general public. To that extent, learned counsel for the
appellant is correct in his submission.

There is presumption against a repeal by implication; and the reason of
this rule is based on the theory that the Legislature while enacting a law has
a complete knowledge of the existing laws on the same subject matter, and C
therefore, when it does not provide a repealing provision, the intention is
clear not to repeal the existing legislation. See: Municipal Council, Palai
through the Commissioner of Municipal Council, Palai v. T.J Joseph, AIR
(1963) SC 1561, Northern India Caterers (Private) Ltd and Anr. v. State of
Punjab and Anr., AIR ( 1967) SC 1581, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shiv D
Shanker, [ 1971] l SCC 442 and Ratan Lal Adukia and Anr. v. Union of India,
AIR ( 1990) SC I 04. When the new Act contains a repealing section mentioning
the Acts which it expressly repeals, the presumption against implied repeal
of other laws is further strengthened on the principle expressio unius (persone
vel rei) est exclusio alterius. (The express intention of one person or thing
is the exclusion of another), as illuminatingly stated in Garnett v. Bradley, E
(l 878) 3 AC 944 HL. The continuance of existing legislation, in the absence
of an express provision of repeal by implication lies on the party asserting
the same. The presumption is, however, rebutted and a repeal is inferred by
necessary implication when the provisions of the later Act are so inconsistent
with or repugnant to the provisions of the earlier Act and that the two cannot F
stand together. But, if the two can be read together and some application can
be made of the words in the earlier Act, a repeal will not be inferred. See: A.G.
v. Moore (1878) 3 Ex. D 276, Ratanla/'s case (supra) and R.S. Raghunath v.
State of Karnataka and Anr., AIR (1992) SC 81.

The necessary questions to be asked are:
G
(l) Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions.

(2) Whether the Legislature intended to lay down an exhaustive Code
in respect of the subject-matter replacing the earlier law;

(3) Whether the two laws occupy the same field.
H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A See: Pt. Rishikesh and Anr. v. Sa/ma Begum (Smt.), [1995] 4 SCC 718
and Shri A.B. Krishna and Ors. v. The State of Karnataka and Ors.,
JT(l998) l SC613.

The doctrine of implied repeal is based on the theory that the Legislature,
which is presumed to know the existing law, did not intend to create any
B confusion by retaining conflicting provision~ and, therefore, when the court
arpties the doctrine, it does not more than give effect to the intention of the
Legislature by examining the scope and the object of the two enactments and
by a comparison of their provisions. The matter in each case is one of the
construction and comparison of the two statutes. The Court leans against
C implying a repeal, "unless two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other.
that effect cannot be given to both at the same time, a repeal will not be ·
implied, or that there is a necessary inconsistency in the two Acts standing
together." (See Craies on Statute Law, Seventh Edition, page 366, with reference
to Re: Berrey (1936) Ch. 274). To determine whether a later statute repeals by
. implication an earlier, it is necessary to. scrutinize the terms and consider the
D true meaning and effect of the earlier Act. Until this is done, it is impossible
to ascertain whether any inconsistency exists between the two enactments.
The area of operation in the Code and the pollution laws in question are
different with wholly different aims. and objects; and though they alleviate
nuisance, that is not of identical nature. They operate in their respective fields
E and there is no impediment for their existence side by side.
While as noted above the provisions of Section 133 of the Code are in
the nature of preventive measurts, the provisions contained in the-two Acts
are not only curative but also preventive and penal. The provisions appear
to be mutually exclusive and the question of one replacing the other does not
F arise. Above being the position, the High Court was not justified in holding
that there was any implied repeal of Section 133 of the Code ..The appeals
deserve to be allowed to the extent indicated above, which we direct.

· However, if applicatior,.; are pending before the Board, it would be
appropriate for the Board to take 11ecessary steps for their c!ispcal. The
G question whether there was no infraction unJer Section i 33 of the Code or
the two Ads is a matter which shall be dealt with by the appropriate for1m,
and we do not express any opinion in that regaro.

S.K.S. Appeals partly allowed.