1. It appears that ther is a market in Pathipala village and that one Moidin Kutti set up a rival market close to it. The Head Assistant Magistrate issued a notice to Moidin Kutti under Section 33 of the Criminal Procedure Code to show why cause, why he should not be ordered to discontinue holding the new market and having heard the rival market holder passed an order under Section 136 Code of Criminal Procedure, closing the new market. The District Magistrate having referred the matter to us as a Court of Revision, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order.
2. It is utterly impossible to hold that because there is already one market in a village a man who opens another market close to it can be held to be carrying on a trade or occupation that is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community. It is not even alleged that the new market causes any injury to any one's health or comfort. All that is said here in support of this order is that people in one market are sometimes forcibly dragged from it to the rival institution. If so, the offenders can be prosecuted criminally but the fact that such assaults etc., have been committed is no ground for passing an order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of the Head Assistant Magistrate is set aside.