K. RAMACHANDRIAH, J.

( 1 ) 1. The short point that tails for determination in this Revision Petition is : whether the utterance of the words by the petitioner to one S. Jayarama Rao (P. W. 3 ). within the meeting hall of the land Tribunal, Pandavapura, in the course of the proceedings of the Land Tribunal, amounts to the offence of public nuisance punishable under Section 290 I. P. C.

( 2 ) IT has arisen in this way : petitioner is the younger brother of p. W. 3 S. Jayarama Rao. It appears there was a case between them before the Land Tribunal, Pandavapura. It had been posted for hearing on 15-11-1984. In the said case, petitioner was being cross examined by P. W. 3. Being irritated and upset by certain questions put by P. W. 3 to the petitioner, petitioner appears to have uttered the words "a^i, isid. an ;?=; sire 33ft ose*,' isfe" and those words were obviously directed to P. W. 3 and not to anybody else and while uttering those words, the petitioner appears to have misbehaved. 11 respect of that incident, a petty case charge-sheet was by Pandavapura Police against the petitioner in the Court of the Addl. Munsiff and JMFC, Srirangapatna, in C. C. No. 865/84 The statement of accusation that was read out and explained to the petitioner by the learned Magistrate reads thus :

( 3 ) PETITIONER pleaded not guilty to the said accusation. Thereupon, Sri B S. Palaksha, Chairman of the Land Tribunal was examined as P W. 1. Sri B. K. Javarappa, a member of the Land Tribunal was examined as P. W. 2. Complainant s. Jayarama Rao was examined as P. W. 3 and Head Constable H S Chinnabuddi of pandavapura Police Station was examined as P W. 4 Petitioner did not adduce any evidence by way of his defence which was one of total denial of the prosecution case On an appreciation of the said evidence, the learned Magistrate by an order dated 14-8-1987, held the petitioner guilty of the offence under Sec. 290 i. P. C. , convicted him for the said offence a'ld sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10o/- or in default to pay the fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Munsiff and JMFC against him, the petitioner has filed this revision Petition.

( 5 ) SRI. P. Natarajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner had uttered the above mentioned words, which were directed against P W. 3 only when enquiry in the case between him and P W. 3 was being held by the Land Tribunal in the meeting hall of the Land Tribunal, Pandavapura, it would not amount to an offence under section 280 I P C. , as utterance of those words do not constitute a public nuisance as defined in Seciion 268 I P. C. Sri a Giddappa, learned Addl. State Public prosecutor, very rightly, in my opinion, submitted that he cannot support the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence es the utterance of the above- mentioned words do not constitute public nuisance as defined in Section 268 I. P. C. Section 288 I P. C. , which bears the heading "public nuisance" reads as under:"a person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in gene'al who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage. "

( 6 ) A plain reading of the above extracted provision of Section 268 I. P. C. would indicate that in order to amount to a public nuisance, a person must have acted in a manner which may cause any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general, who might dwell in a certain area or in occupation of any property in the vicinity necessarily causing in injury or obstruction or d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document