Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code defines the term public nuisance 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 general 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.”

Therefore, public nuisance is doing such an act that tends to cause annoyance to the whole community, in general, omitting to do anything which the common good requires. In other words, a public nuisance is an act which affects the public at large, or the health, safety, comfort or convenience of the public at large, or which tend to degrade the public at large, or tend to degrade public morals, has been regarded as a public nuisance.

Essential ingredients of public nuisance-

• A person must have done or must be guilty of an illegal omission.
• (2)Such an act or omission:
• (i) Must cause some injury, threat or disturbance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy a property in the vicinity.
• (ii) must necessarily cause injury, danger or obstruction cross-examination causes public nuisance is an offence under Indian penal code and is punishable accordingly.

In S.Kenkataramaish vs. State, the accused added certain words to his brother during the cross-examination before the Tribunal and misbehaved but there is no quarrel between them. It was held that such attendance even through does not amount to public nuisance under section 268 of IPC.

Kinds of public nuisance-

(i) Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life- Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for the negligent act potential to circulate infection of disease hazardous to life as under:
Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which, is and which he knows or has a reason to assume, likely to spread the disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine, or with both.

This section punishes such acts of public nuisance which are calculated to accelerate the infection of dangerous diseases. Before conviction of a person under the section, it must be proved that the accused knew that the disease was contagious.

Illustration

A, knowing that he was suffering from cholera, travelled by train without informing the railway officers of his condition. Here, A is guilty under the section because he must have known that he was doing an act likely to spread infection.

(ii) Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life- Section 270 of the IPC provides punishment for a malignant act likely to spread infection of some hazardous disease as under:

Whoever does any malignant act which he knows or has some reason to believe to be likely to spread infectious disease, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term extending to two years, or with fine, or both.
To punish the person under this section, it is essential that the person spreading the infection must be actuated by malice.

(iii) Disobedience to Quarantine rule- section 271 of IPC provides punishment for disobedience to Quarantine rule as under:

Whoever deliberately disobeys any law made and promulgated by the government for putting any vessel into a state of quarantine or regulating the intercourse of vessel in the state of quarantine with the shore or with other vessels, or for regulating the intercourse between places where a contagious disease prevails and other places shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a period which may extend to 6 months or fine, or with both.

This means that whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made by the government with the motive to isolate places infected with a hazardous disease from the other places. Disobedience with knowledge is an essential factor here. Section 271 is non-cognisable and bailable. In Cognizable cases police has the authority to arrest without warrant and initiate an investigation without prior permission of the Magistrate.

(iv) adulteration of food or drink intended for sale- Section 272 of IPC providing punishment for adulteration food or drink intended for sale as under:
Whoever adulterates any item of food or drink, to make such item noxious as food or drink, or anticipating that the same item will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of a term extending up to 6months, or with fine which may extend to 1000 rupees, or with both.

It should be noted that the mixing of only noxious ingredients in food or drink is punishable. Adulteration with harmless ingredients for example mixing of water with milk is not an offence under this section, though it may be an offence under the prevention of food adulteration act. The expression noxious as food means and wholesome as food or injurious to health. This is a bailable and non-cognizable offence.

(v) sale of noxious food or drink- section 273 of IPC provides punishment for the sale of noxious food as under:

Whoever sells or offers or exposes for sale as food or drink, any article which has been rendered and has become noxious, or is in a state inappropriate for food and drinks, realizing or having a reason to believe that the same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to 6 months, or with imprisonment which may extend to 1000 rupees or with both.

This section punishes the sale of adulterated articles. Before penalizing a person under the section it must be proved:

• That the accused was selling or offering for sale as food or drink some article,
• That such article had become noxious or was not in a straight fit for food and drink at the time of sale.
• That the sale or exposure was made with the knowledge or reason to believe that the article was noxious as food or drink.
• It should be noted that the sale of a mere noxious article is not punishable under this section but what the section punishes is the sale of noxious articles as food or drink.