Question

Principle: Doing of an act which causes common injury, danger or annoyance to public or which is likely to cause such injury or annoyance is Public nuisance. A common nuisance is not excused because it causes some nuisance or advantage.
Facts: ‘A’ a farmer having large farmlands burns crop residue (stubble) on his fields after harvesting the crop to make the field ready for next crop as this is the easy, fast and convenient method of making the field ready for next crop. His farmlands are adjoining a densely inhabited residential area and people pass through the smoke while travelling on the road adjoining his farmlands. The smoke caused by fire also enters the houses in the colony.

• A. A has not committed any offence since he does not cause any specific injury to any specific person.
• B. A has not committed any offence because he does not gain any advantage from persons living in the vicinity.
• C. A has committed public nuisance.
• D. A has not committed any offence because the alleged acts are done on the fields owned and used by him and acts are done without any intention to cause harm.

Hint:

Public nuisance requires that the act causes specific harm, danger, or annoyance to the general public rather than to any particular individual.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Principle:
An act that causes common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public, or is likely to, is public nuisance, and it is not excused just because it also brings some convenience or advantage to the person doing it.

Step 2: Applying the Principle to the Facts:
A burns crop residue on fields next to a densely inhabited residential colony. The smoke reaches people travelling on the adjoining road and enters houses in the colony, which is common annoyance spread across the public rather than harm to one specific person.

Step 3: Evaluating the Other Options:
Public nuisance does not need a single identifiable victim, so the absence of injury to one specific person does not clear A. Whether A gains any advantage from his neighbours is irrelevant, and doing the act on his own land without meaning harm does not stop the smoke from reaching and bothering the public.

Step 4: Final Answer:
A has committed public nuisance, since the smoke causes common annoyance to the public and the principle does not excuse that just because burning is convenient for him.

Answer 2

Major premise: an act causing common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public is public nuisance, and it is not excused merely because it also brings some advantage or convenience to the person doing it. Minor premise: A burns stubble next to a densely inhabited colony, and the smoke reaches people on the adjoining road and enters houses in the colony. Testing the conclusions:

1. No offence, since no specific person is injured: This conclusion needs the major premise to require an identifiable individual victim, which it does not; it is framed around effects on the public at large.
2. No offence, since A gains no advantage from neighbours: This conclusion needs a premise about mutual benefit between A and his neighbours, which plays no role in the major premise at all.
3. A has committed public nuisance: This follows directly, since the minor premise's facts, smoke reaching the public road and colony houses, are exactly the common annoyance the major premise describes, and the major premise also rules out convenience as an excuse.
4. No offence, since done on his own land without intent: This conclusion needs the major premise to turn on location or intention, but it turns only on the effect the act has on the public, which the minor premise shows is present regardless of where the fire started.

Only the third option is the conclusion the major premise supports once matched to the minor premise's facts about the smoke's reach.

Therefore, the correct answer is A has committed public nuisance.