In Re: Annamalai - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- a. alagiriswami, j.1. the petitioner has been convicted by the special first class magistrate, shevapet, under section 75 of the madras city police act, for having been guilty of indecent behaviour in a public place, that is a tea-shop and sentenced to pay a. fine of rs. 10. the only point argued is that a tea-shop cannot be said to be a public place. ' public place ' is defined in section 3 of the act as meaning a place including a road, street or way, whether a throughfare or not, and a landing place to which the public are granted access or have a right to resort or over which they have a right to pass. in mangubhai v. emperor a.i.r. 1930 bom. 369, a hotel has been held to be a place-to which the public are permitted to have access. in the crown prosecutor v. moonooswamy i.l.r. (1910) mad. 83, an arrack-shop has been held to be a public place within the meaning of section 75. in natarajan v. state (1963) m.w.n.172, a barber's saloon has been held to be a public place, as defined in section 3 of the city police act. there is no doubt that a tea shop is a place to which the public can have access and they have a right to resort to a tea-shop and the keeper of the tea-shop cannot exclude any person who comes-to his hotel to be served refreshments. it is, therefore, quite clear that the tea-shop in this case would be a public place and consequently it should be held that the petitioner has been rightly convicted for having behaved indecently in a public place.2. the criminal revision case is, therefore, dismissed.