IPC Section 290: Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for

Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees. Continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue

IPC Section 290: Simplified Explanation 

IPC Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses public nuisance. It is a general provision that penalizes acts of public nuisance not specifically covered under other IPC sections. Public nuisance refers to any act or omission that causes inconvenience, annoyance, or harm to the public or people in general. 

Key Elements: 

  1. Public Nuisance: The act must cause inconvenience or harm to the public. 
  1. Not Otherwise Provided For The nuisance must not be specifically addressed by any other section of the IPC. 

Is IPC Section 290 Bailable? 

Yes, IPC Section 290 is a bailable offence. This means that an accused person has the right to be released on bail by providing a security amount and a bail bond. A police officer or a magistrate can decide to grant bail. 

IPC Section 290 Punishment 

The punishment for an offence under IPC Section 290 includes: 

  • Fine: The convicted person can be liable to pay a fine, which may extend up to two hundred rupees. 

This provision addresses minor public nuisances that do not fall under more specific sections of the IPC, ensuring that such actions are still subject to penalty. 

Example of IPC Section 290 

A street vendor regularly sets up his stall in the middle of a busy sidewalk, obstructing pedestrian traffic and causing significant inconvenience to the public. Despite repeated warnings from local authorities to relocate his stall to a less obstructive location, he continues to operate in the same spot. This persistent public nuisance, causing annoyance and inconvenience to pedestrians, leads to charges under IPC Section 290. 

In court, it was established that the vendor’s actions constituted a public nuisance not otherwise provided for in the IPC. Consequently, he was fined two hundred rupees, demonstrating the legal recourse available to address minor but persistent nuisances that affect public convenience and safety.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *