Skip to content


In Re: Govinda Naidu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Case No. 530 of 1958 and Crl. Revn. Petn. No. 505 of 1958
Judge
Reported inAIR1959Mad513; 1959CriLJ1440
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 160 and 290; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 237
AppellantIn Re: Govinda Naidu and ors.
Appellant AdvocateR. Sundaravaradan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateV.V. Radhakrishnan, Adv. for ;Public Prosecutor
DispositionRevision allowed
Cases ReferredRaghunath Kandu v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- .....that they cannot be convicted even under section 290, i. p. c. in support of the view that a person charged under section 160, i. p. c., cannot be convicted under section 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 under section 34 of the police act for causing obstruction to the public and he was convicted under section 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 under section 290, i. p. c. in any event, as i have found already on the strength of the decision in 1936 mad wn crl. 211: air 1937 mad 130, which is also relied on by the learned counsel for the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Somasundaram, J.

1. In this case the petitioners were charged for an offence Under Section 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 Under Section 160 J. P. C., and without taking any statement from the accused the petitioners have been convicted Under Section 290, I. P. C.

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

In order that a person may be convicted Under Section 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 Perumal Naidu v. Emperor : AIR1937Mad130 , 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 Under Section 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.

2. Apart from the difficulty of convicting the petitioners Under Section 290, I. P. C., after being charged Under Section 160, I. P. C., I must hold that on the merits that they cannot be convicted even Under Section 290, I. P. C. In support of the view that a person charged Under Section 160, I. P. C., cannot be convicted Under Section 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 Under Section 34 of the Police Act for causing obstruction to the public and he was convicted Under Section 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 Under Section 290, I. P. C. In any event, as I have found already on the strength of the decision in 1936 Mad WN Crl. 211: AIR 1937 Mad 130, 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.


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