JUDGMENT S.D. Khare, J. - This is an appeal directed against an order dated 16-12-1963, passed by the learned Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Varanasi, allowing the appeal of the Respondent and setting aside his conviction and sentence u/s 294 IPC. 2. The case against the Respondent, briefly stated, was that on 23-9-1963, at about 9-15 p.m. while he was standing as a short distance from the shop of Chhotey Lal in Mohalla Sankath Mochan he uttered the following words addressing them to girls and ladies who passed nearby to visit the temple: "Haae jani mardal. Idhar bhi darshan karti ja". He kept on repeating those words and that caused annoyance to the ladies and others who happened to be there. The matter was brought to the notice of constable Kedar Singh who was on duty at the gate of Sankath Mochan temple. The constable went to the place where the Respondent was standing and asked him to desist from doing so. Kailash (Respondent) was, however, not agreeable to listen to the constable. On the other hand he asked him why he was interfering when the ladies were not his sisters or mothers. Kailash (Respondent) was thereupon arrested and taken to the police station Bhelupur where a report was lodged by the constable at 9-15 p.m. the same evening. 3. The Magistrate, who tried the case, held that the prosecution story was correct, that the words ascribed to the Respondent had infact been uttered by him and that the Respondent was guilty of an offence u/s 294 IPC. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the Respondent. On appeal the learned Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge agreed with the trial court so far as the findings of fact were concerned, but placing reliance on the unreported case of Hafizulla v. State Cr. Rev. No. 237 of 1963, decided by Hon'ble Broome, J. on 11-9-1963 held that the words uttered by the Respondent 'could not be deemed to be obscene. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Respondent. 4. It is contended by the learned Asstt. Govt. Advocate that in the circumstances of the case the words, if held to have been uttered by the Respondent, were amorous and suggestive of sex appeal and therefore, the conviction and sentence u/s 294 IPC should not have been set aside. 4. It is contended by the learned Asstt. Govt. Advocate that in the circumstances of the case the words, if held to have been uttered by the Respondent, were amorous and suggestive of sex appeal and therefore, the conviction and sentence u/s 294 IPC should not have been set aside. It was contended on behalf of the Respondent that the case against him had been framed by the police of Bhelupur and he had been falsely implicated because he had made a complaint against Sri Ram Adhar Rai, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhelupur, to the Inspector-General of Police and certain other officers of the district. 5. There can be no doubt that the learned Temp. Civil and Sessions Judge failed to observe that the case of Hafizullah (supra) is clearly distinguishable. The words uttered by the accused person in that case were "Malik ek nazar idhar bhi dekhte jao," and they might not have been considered to be obscene in the peculiar circumstance of the case. There can be no doubt that those words could safely be uttered by a beggar addressing himself to both the males and the females and no contention could have been raised in such a case that any offence had been committed by a beggar u/s 294 IPC. That is, of course, an extreme case. The learned Judge who decided that revision application in Hafizulla's case upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case arrived at the conclusion that the words uttered by the accused were not obscene. That finding of fact in Hafizullah's case could hardly help Kailash (Respondent). 6. The facts and circumstances of each case are, however, different. In the present case if the prosecution story is accepted there can be no doubt that the words uttered by Kailash (Respondent) were obscene and had been uttered in a public place. Section 294 IPC provides: Whoever, to the annoyance of others, (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or, (b) Sings, recites or utters any obscene songs, ballad or words in or near any public place shall be punished with imprisonment of either description to a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both. The words alleged to have been uttered by Kailash (Respondent) could fall Under Clause (b) of Section 294 IPC and were bound to cause annoyance to the passersby. 7. The words alleged to have been uttered by Kailash (Respondent) could fall Under Clause (b) of Section 294 IPC and were bound to cause annoyance to the passersby. 7. However, on hearing this appeal we are of the opinion that the case against Kailash Respondent) suffered from the following infirmities: * * * * * 8. In our opinion the case against Kailash (Respondent) suffers from so many infirmities that it will not be safe to convict him u/s 294 IPC. It was a fit case in which Kailash (Respondent) should have been given the benefit of doubt. 9. In this view of the case there is no force in this Government Appeal and it is dismissed.