Site navigation

In Madhavi v. Thilakan (Kerala High Court, 5 October 1988), was the livelihood of a workshop owner and…

The Court held that "No; livelihood alone did not justify leaving a public-health nuisance unaddressed". It set aside the order that had dropped the proceedings and directed…

Choose your answer

In Madhavi v. Thilakan (Kerala High Court, 5 October 1988), was the livelihood of a workshop owner and employees, by itself, a justification for refusing to address a public nuisance under CrPC section 133?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer B

The Court held that "No; livelihood alone did not justify leaving a public-health nuisance unaddressed". It set aside the order that had dropped the proceedings and directed fresh consideration after hearing both sides; it did not order automatic permanent closure.

The corresponding provision is now section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic