Skip to content


Achammagari Venkata Reddy Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Case No. 727 of 1951 and Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 721 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Mad242; (1952)2MLJ554
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 268
AppellantAchammagari Venkata Reddy
RespondentThe State
Appellant AdvocateP. Basi Reddi and ;I. Baliah, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateThe Public Prosecutor
DispositionRevision dismissed
Excerpt:
- - , and giving rise to offensive smell and causing to the persons living in the vicinity danger to their health and annoyance and threatening also such injury and annoyance to the persons who would of necessity be compelled to use that part of the rastha......in this revision is whether the act attributed to the accused amounted to a public nuisance.2. the word 'nuisance' has been defined by stephen to be anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments of another and not amounting to trespass. (stephen, iii, 499). the word 'nuisance' is derived from the french word 'nuire', to do hurt or to annoy. blackstone describes (no cumentum) as something that 'worketh hurt, inconvenience or damage'. the offence of public nuisance may thus be analysed (i) it may be caused either by an act or illegal omission (ii) the effect thereof must be either injury, danger or annoyance (iii) actually caused either to the public or to that portion of the public who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity or (iv) threatened of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ramaswami, J.

1. The short point for determination in this revision is whether the act attributed to the accused amounted to a public nuisance.

2. The word 'nuisance' has been defined by Stephen to be anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements, or hereditaments of another and not amounting to trespass. (Stephen, III, 499). The word 'nuisance' is derived from the French word 'nuire', to do hurt or to annoy. Blackstone describes (no cumentum) as something that 'worketh hurt, inconvenience or damage'. The offence of public nuisance may thus be analysed (i) it may be caused either by an act or illegal omission (ii) the effect thereof must be either injury, danger or annoyance (iii) actually caused either to the public or to that portion of the public who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity or (iv) threatened of necessity to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.

3. Bearing these principles in mind, let us examine what the accused did. The accusation is that on 2-6-1950, the petitioner before us raised the level of the public rastha in front of his northern house and also constructed a cross bund across the rastha at the boundary between the two houses with the result that the flow of rain-water northernwards through the rastha was impeded, if not completely obstructed and the water began to stagnate in the rastha in front of the southern house, causing annoyance to the complainant and the other residents of the village entitled to use the rastha.

4. These facts proved through P. Ws. 1 to 4 and whose evidence was not seriously contradicted by the three D. Ws., establish the acts of the accused, viz., raising the level and cross-bunding and the result therefrom namely stagnation of water leading to breeding of mosquitoes etc., and giving rise to offensive smell and causing to the persons living in the vicinity danger to their health and annoyance and threatening also such injury and annoyance to the persons who would of necessity be compelled to use that part of the rastha.

5. Therefore a clear case of public nuisance having been made out, there are no merits in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //