JUDGMENT - BHOLE, J.:---The State is here against the order of acquittal in a case under section 294 r.w. section 109 I.P.C. This is a case of cabaret at a hotel called "Blue Nile" at Bombay, where the first accused appeared before the diners, according to the prosecution in a manner which would annoy the diners because she was appearing in an obscene dress while dancing. The other three accused are the partners of "Blue Nile" where the cabaret dance had taken place. This appeal came up rather late here because the first accused was absconding. She is still not served with a warrant and, therefore, an order was passed by this Court previously that the appeal against only the three accused should be taken. That is how the appeal against the three others has been taken up today. 2. The cabaret dance with which we are concerned took place on 19-12-1970 in the night at about 10.30. Because of certain information to the police P.S.I. Patil along with the independent witness Daulatrai (P.W. 3) and other three Police Officers went to "Blue Nile" after booking a place for five persons. The first accused appeared in the second cabaret at 11 p.m. It is said that she entered dressed in a blue gown and smoking a cigarette. She was moving from table to table playing with hair of different customers who were sitting at the table. She requested some of the diners to remove her clothes and the result was that after five minutes she was left only with her panties and brassiers. She took out her brassiers also later on and left only with her panties. It is alleged that in this condition she was brushing her breasts against the customers and was playing with the hair of different persons who sat there for dinners. After her play was over the Police Officer recorded the statement of one other witness Guruprasad (P.W. 1) who had come there for dinner. They then went to the Police Station along with the accused and recorded the statements of different witnesses. It is in this way that the four accused came to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 294 read with section 109 I.P.C. 3. All the four accused denied having committed the offence. They then went to the Police Station along with the accused and recorded the statements of different witnesses. It is in this way that the four accused came to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 294 read with section 109 I.P.C. 3. All the four accused denied having committed the offence. The first accused said that she was there for cabaret dance but that she did not do anything annoying or obscene as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. The other three accused admitted that they were partners of "Blue Nile" but said that no obscene acts were performed by the first accused there. The learned Magistrate did not believe witness Guruprasad Khanna (P.W. 1) and the independent witness Kothari (P.W. 3) and was not, therefore, willing, to believe the evidence of Police Officers Desai and Patil (P.Ws. 4 and 5). According to him there was no evidence also as regards the annoyance. The result was that he acquitted all the accused. That order of acquittal, therefore, is now challenged here. 4. Let us first examine the testimony of two witnesses Guruprasad and Daulatrai, who are not Police Officers. Guruprasad appears to be exaggerating the acts performed by the first accused, because he even went to the extent of saying that she went on putting her breasts nipples in customers mouths and asking them to suck. He also went to the extent of saying that she went about in the dining hall striking her bosoms at the faces of the customers. This version is not given even by the Police Officers. Although the Police Officers do say that she attempted to bring her breasts near the head of S.I. Deshmukh, Deshmukh, himself, was not examined by the prosecution. Although witness Khanna has tried to state during the course of his evidence that some people left after the first cabaret which was of a different girl, he did not say so before the police. Although he had gone also to the extent of saying that the other girl Lisa did perform the cabaret dance in the first show and has removed her clothes, he did not state so before the police. He did not also state before the police that the first accused. Christine Kelly had put breasts nipples in mouths of four or five customers. He did not also state before the police that the first accused. Christine Kelly had put breasts nipples in mouths of four or five customers. He has stated in his evidence that she had come to his table and brushed her away but did not say so before the police. Although he had stated to the Court that he had lost his appetite in disgust because of such performance by the first accused, yet he was enjoying the whole show till the last. In fact he had come there for the purpose of seeing the cabaret only after paying Rs. 30/- and after discussing the cabaret with his friend Fernadez. It is, therefore, difficult for one to rely on the evidence of such a witness. 5. The other independent witness Daulatrai Kothari does not appear to be independent because he seems to be a friend of the police. He has his own tailors shop and he admits the Police Officers being his customers. He knew Police Officer Desai who had also gone with them to "Blue Nile" that night. Such a person who is a friend of the Police Officers, therefore, cannot be said to be independent. The witness says that when he had gone to Princess Street Police Station on 18-12-1970 because one of his friends had lost his son. The P.S.I. Patil told him on that day to go to "Blue Nile" to become a witness for the obscene acts performed by the first accused. He, therefore, went the next day to "Blue Nile" and met the police there. P.S.I. Patil, however, concealed this fact and said that he met witness Kothari only on the day of the offence viz. 19-12-1970 and that, therefore, he took him there. This circumstance also, therefore, shows that there must have been a meeting between the police and the witness a day prior to the day of the offence and things must have been planned out. This also shows the interest of this witness. The witness was already in the know of what a cabaret dance was because he had witnessed a cabaret at hotel "Maharaja". This witness cannot be said to have been annoyed because of the performance of the first accused because he was sitting there till the last. He says that he was interested in seeing the cabaret and waited there till the end because he was interested. This witness cannot be said to have been annoyed because of the performance of the first accused because he was sitting there till the last. He says that he was interested in seeing the cabaret and waited there till the end because he was interested. Therefore, this witness was interested in the police and by bringing a friend of their own they cannot tell the Court that he is an independent witness. There is no evidence also to show that he was annoyed. Under section 294 I.P.C. unless annoyance is caused the act cannot be said to obscene. Although he says that the first accused tried to play with the head of Police Officer Deshmukh with her breasts Deshmukh himself was not examined. It would, therefore, be difficult for me to call this witness independent witness and rely on every word that is said by him. 6. The learned Magistrate also did not rely on him giving many other reasons why he could not rely on him. 7. We are then left only with the evidence of Police Officers Patil and Desai. These two witnesses also say that the first accused had played with her breasts on head of Deshmukh, but it would be risky to trust the word of these two officers because they can easily be said to be witnesses who are more interested in the success of the case. 8. The test of obscenity is whether there was tendency in the act to deprive and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. No witness says that the act had any tendency which inflamed their passions. There is hardly any evidence also to show that there was annoyance caused to the diners there. No statement of any diner, who is annoyed was recorded. Khanna also does not say so because he seems to have enjoyed after paying for the cabaret till the last. I am not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. This appeal, therefore, should fail. I, therefore, confirm the order of acquittal and dismiss this appeal in so far as accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned. 9. The record shows that the first accused is absconding because the notice could not be served on her. This appeal, therefore, should fail. I, therefore, confirm the order of acquittal and dismiss this appeal in so far as accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned. 9. The record shows that the first accused is absconding because the notice could not be served on her. I do not think it is advisable to wait for her because I also find that there is hardly any reason for the Court to intervene in the order of acquittal of the first accused. I have given reasons for the acquittal of the 2nd, third and the fourth accused and those reasons also hold good for the first accused. She is also, therefore, acquitted. No appeal, therefore, need be heard against her. 10. Bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled. -----