The Magistrate is also given the power to direct local investigation or examination by an expert. In the present case, apart from the fact that Annexure-II order as well as the impugned order do not conform to the requirement of law, the impugned order is one virtually partaking the character of a final order passed without any enquiry and without taking evidence under section 137 Cr.P.C. Both Annexure-II order as well as the impugned order dated 14.8.2006 cannot, therefore, be supported. Since the revision is directed only against impugned order dated 14.8.2006 the same is set aside and the first respondent is directed to proceed afresh under Chapter X Part B Cr.P.C. strictly in accordance with law. Since there was a stay of the impugned order passed by this court, it is not disputed that the piggery run by the petitioner is still functioning. The first respondent shall after hearing both sides pass final orders under section 138 Cr.P.C. either directing discontinuance of the piggery or continuance of the same subject to such conditions as he may deem fit safeguarding the health of the residents and ensuring that the piggery does not cause any public nuisance in that locality. But such final orders shall be passed only after taking evidence and strictly in accordance with law. Final orders shall be passed by the first respondent within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until then, the revision petitioner will be entitled to maintain the piggery without giving room for any complaint of public nuisance and
