Order 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, Indian Penal Code and without taking any statement from the accused the petitioners have been convicted under section 290, Indian Penal Code. The ingredients of an offence under section 160, Indian Penal Code are totally different from the ingredients of an offence under section 290, Indian Penal Code. The petitioners successfully met the charge under section 160, Indian Penal Code and there was not the slightest possibility of their knowing that they will be convicted under section 290, Indian Penal Code. It is doubtful whether a person who is charged under section 160, Indian Penal Code, can ever be convicted under section 290, Indian Penal Code. In order that a person may be convicted under section 290, Indian Penal Code there must be public nuisance by doing an act or an illegal omission causing any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public. Pandrang Rao, J., in Perumal Naidu v. Emperor1 has dealt with the question of annoyance. He has pointed out how when a person passes urine in a grazing ground poramboke under cover of a tamarind tree in a village cannot be convicted under section 290, Indian Penal Code. 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. Apart from the difficulty of convicting the petitioners under section 290, Indian Penal Code, after being charged under section 160, Indian Penal Code, I must hold that on the merits they cannot be convicted even under section 290, Indian Penal Code. Apart from the difficulty of convicting the petitioners under section 290, Indian Penal Code, after being charged under section 160, Indian Penal Code, I must hold that on the merits they cannot be convicted even under section 290, Indian Penal Code. In support of the view that a person charged under section 160, Indian Penal Code, cannot be convicted under section 290, Indian Penal Code, Mr. Sundaravaradan, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies on the decision in Raghunath Kandu v. Emperor1 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, Indian Penal Code. 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, Indian Penal Code. In any event, as I have found already on the strength of the decision in Perumal Naidu v. Emperor2 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. R.M. ----- Conviction and sentence set aside.