In Re: Govinda Naidu and Others

Somasundaram, J.—In this case the petitioners were charged for an offence u/s 160 of the Indian Penal Code. The case against them is that they orally quarrelled in a public street. Finding that it does not amount to an offence u/s 160 J. P. C., and without taking any statement from the accused the petitioners have been convicted u/s 290, I. P. C.

The ingredients of an offence u/s 160, I. P. C., are totally different from the ingredients of an offence u/s 290, I. P. C. The petitioners successfully met the charge u/s 160, 3. P. C., and there was not. the slightest possibility of their knowing that they will be convicted u/s 290, I. P. C. It is doubtful whether a person who is charged u/s 160, I. P. C., can ever be convicted u/s 290, I. P. C.

In order that a person may be convicted u/s 290, I. P. C., there must be public nuisance by doing an act or an illegal omission causing any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public. Pandrang Row J., in In Re: Vedagiri Perumal Naidu, , has dealt with the question of annoyance. He has pointed out how when a person pusses urine in a grazing ground poromhoke under a cover of a tamarind tree in a village he cannot he, convicted u/s 290, I. P. C. He Dnds, in short, that what is likely to be an annoyance to persons in a town may not be an annoyance to the villagers.

In the particular case if a person probably passed urine in a public place in a town it was very likely to cause annoyance to the neighbours or to the passers by; but the same act will not cause annoyance to the villagers. Similarly, a quarrel in a village, though it might be a source of annoyance to persons in a town is not likely to be an annoyance to villagers or inhabitants in the village.

Apart from the difficulty of convicting the petitioners u/s 290, I. P. C., after being charged u/s 160, I. P. C., I must hold that on the merits that they cannot be convicted even u/s 290, I. P. C. In support of the view that a person charged u/s 160, I. P. C., cannot be convicted u/s 290, I. P. C., Mr. R. Suridaravaradan, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies on the decision in Raghunath Kandu v. Emperor, AIR 1926 All 227.

There the accused was charged u/s 34 of the Police Act for causing obstruction to the public and he was convicted u/s 290, I. P. C. The conviction was set aside on the ground that the accused did not even know what he was charged with till he was convicted u/s 290, I. P. C. In any event, as I have found already on the strength of the decision in In Re: Vedagiri Perumal Naidu, , which is also relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners no offence has been made out. The conviction and sentence are set aside, the accused are acquitted and the fines, if paid, will be refunded.