137 exam-style questions on this chapter, written from the actual legal text and tagged for UPSC, Judiciary and CLAT. Five are shown below with answers and explanations — the rest are in the free interactive drill.
Q1 · easy · BNS S.270
Under Section 270 of the BNS, a person is guilty of public nuisance if his act or illegal omission causes what?
- A.Injury only to a specific individual
- B.Common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to people who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity✓ correct
- C.Loss to the Government exchequer
- D.Damage exclusively to public property
Why: Section 270 defines public nuisance as an act or illegal omission causing any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity. The essence of the offence is injury to the community, not to a particular individual.
Read Section 270 — Public nuisance →Q2 · easy · BNS S.270
According to Section 270 BNS, public nuisance can be committed by which of the following?
- A.Only a positive act
- B.Only an omission
- C.Either an act or an illegal omission✓ correct
- D.Only a written publication
Why: Section 270 states that a person is guilty of public nuisance who 'does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission' causing common injury, danger or annoyance. Both acts and illegal omissions are covered.
Read Section 270 — Public nuisance →Q3 · medium · BNS S.270
A factory owner argues that his operations, though causing constant annoyance to the residents of the neighbourhood, provide employment and cheap goods to the locality. Under Section 270 BNS, this defence is:
- A.Valid, because convenience to the public excuses a nuisance
- B.Invalid, because a common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage✓ correct
- C.Valid, provided the advantage outweighs the annoyance
- D.Valid, if the factory is licensed
Why: Section 270 expressly declares that 'a common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.' The benefit conferred by the activity is therefore no defence to the charge of public nuisance.
Read Section 270 — Public nuisance →Q4 · medium · BNS S.270
Besides injury to people dwelling in the vicinity, Section 270 BNS also covers acts which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to whom?
- A.Persons who may have occasion to use any public right✓ correct
- B.Only persons travelling on national highways
- C.Only government servants on duty
- D.Persons who consented to the obstruction
Why: Section 270 extends to acts or omissions which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance 'to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.' Interference with the exercise of public rights is thus an independent limb of the definition.
Read Section 270 — Public nuisance →Q5 · hard · BNS S.270
Which of the following best distinguishes public nuisance under Section 270 BNS from a private wrong?
- A.Public nuisance requires proof of pecuniary loss to at least one person
- B.Public nuisance requires that the injury, danger or annoyance be common to the public or people in general in the vicinity, not merely to a particular individual✓ correct
- C.Public nuisance can only be committed on government land
- D.Public nuisance requires an intention to cause death or grievous hurt
Why: The defining feature in Section 270 is that the injury, danger or annoyance must be 'common' — affecting the public or the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or those using a public right. Harm confined to a single individual would not satisfy this element of commonality.
Read Section 270 — Public nuisance →132 more questions on Of Offences Affecting The Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency And Morals
Drill them interactively — instant feedback, links to every provision, and your accuracy tracked on the syllabus map. Free.
Start the free drill →Questions are AI-generated from the legal text, machine-verified against the provision, and editorially reviewable. Education, not legal advice.