Judgement ORDER :- In this case the petitioners were charged for an offence under S. 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 S. 160 I.P.C., and without taking any statement from the accused the petitioners have been convicted under S. 290, I.P.C. The ingredients of an offence under S. 160, I.P.C., are totally different from the ingredients of an offence under S. 290, I.P.C. The petitioners successfully met the charge under S. 160, I.P.C., and there was not the slightest possibility of their knowing that they will be convicted under S. 290, I.P.C. It is doubtful whether a person who is charged under S. 160, I.P.C., can ever be convicted under S. 290, I.P.C. In order that a person may be convicted under S. 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, 1936 Mad WN Crl. 211 : ( AIR 1937 Mad 130 ), has dealt with the question of annoyance. He has pointed out how when a person passes urine in a grazing ground poromboke under a cover of a tamarind tree in a village he cannot be convicted under S. 290, I.P.C. He finds, 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 S. 290, I.P.C., after being charged under S. 160, I.P.C., I must hold that on the merits that they cannot be convicted even under S. 290, I.P.C. In support of the view that a person charged under S. 160, I.P.C., cannot be convicted under S. 290, I.P.C., Mr. 2. Apart from the difficulty of convicting the petitioners under S. 290, I.P.C., after being charged under S. 160, I.P.C., I must hold that on the merits that they cannot be convicted even under S. 290, I.P.C. In support of the view that a person charged under S. 160, I.P.C., cannot be convicted under S. 290, I.P.C., Mr. R. Sundaravaradan, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies on the decision in Raghunath Kandu v. Emperor, AIR 1926 All 227. There the accused was charged under S. 34 of the Police Act for causing obstruction to the public and he was convicted under S. 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 S. 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 1037 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 fire acquitted and the fines, if paid, will be refunded. Revision allowed.