Judgment :- K.M. NATARAJAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed by the accused in S. T. C. No. 8102 of 1985 against his conviction under section 75 (1) (c) of the Madras City Police Act and the sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. ( 2 ) THE brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision are as follows:- P. W. 1 Damodaran (second respondent herein) is a resident of Vetri Nagar and he is the Divisional Manager of Smith Stanistreet Pharmaceuticals Limited. He informed P. W. 2 Sub Inspector through phone that the accused came in front of his house where his wife was standing and abused him in vulgar language. He raised a huge noise and questioned as to who was the leader and who was the secretary. When P. W. 1 asked the accused not to abuse him, he again shouted at him. P. W. 2, the Sub-Inspector of Police, K5 Police Station went to the scene place at about 7. 30 P. M. and arrested the accused. He found the accused abusing P. W. 1 in vulgar language. He brought the accused to the police station and registered a case in Crime No. 766 of 1985 under section 75 (1) (c) of the Madras City Police Act. Thereupon he sent the First Information Report to court. Since the accused was found in drunkenness, he sent the accused to the hospital and obtained Ext. P3 drunkenness certificate. Then he filed chargesheet against the accused for the above offence. ( 3 ) P. W s. 1 and 2 were examined in support of the prosecution case. When the accused was questioned under section 313, Cr. P. C. he denied the evidence as false. (The Magistrate came to the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence of P. Ws. 1. and 2, that the accused is liable for the offence under section 75 (1) (c) of/the Madras City Police Act and consequently convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr. Antony Xavier, mainly submitted that even accepting the entire evidence of the prosecution, the accused cannot be convicted under section 75 (1) (c) of the Madras City Police Act as there is absolutely nothing to show that the incident took place in any public place. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr. Antony Xavier, mainly submitted that even accepting the entire evidence of the prosecution, the accused cannot be convicted under section 75 (1) (c) of the Madras City Police Act as there is absolutely nothing to show that the incident took place in any public place. He would submit that throughout the evidence of P. W. 1 and the judgment of the learned Magistrate, reference has been made only about the front portion of the house and it is nowhere stated that the place where the occurrence took place is a public place or is a street or a place where the public can have access to it. According to the learned counsel, the main ingredient itself is lacking and on that ground, the conviction is liable to be set aside as it is illegal. He drew the attention of this court to section 75 (1) of the Act which reads as follows:p75 (1) Whoever, in any public place, office, station house or court, or in any place of public amusement or on board any passenger boat or vessel, is (a) found drunk and incapable of taking care of himself or (b) found drunk and under the influence of liquor or drug; or (c) found behaving in a violent or boisterous or disorderly or riotous or indecent manner or using any threatening, abusive or insulting words which causes or is likely to cause a breach of public peace, shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment not exceeding six months or fine not exceeding one thousand rupees. Under section 3 of the Act public place has been defined as follows: public place means a place (including a road, street, or way, whether a thoroughfare 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the judgment of the trial court as well as the evidence on record and submitted that nowhere it is stated that the occurrence took place in any public place so as to attract the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the judgment of the trial court as well as the evidence on record and submitted that nowhere it is stated that the occurrence took place in any public place so as to attract the provisions of the Act. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is unable to support the finding of the learned Magistrate by pointing out that the occurrence look place in any, public place except submitting that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is that the occurrence took place in Vetri Nagar in the front portion of the house of P. W. 1. Since the main ingredient, namely, the occurrence took place in a public place, is not established in evidence, the conviction is liable to be set aside. The trial Magistrate did not bestow any attention to the main ingredient of the offence while arriving at the conclusion that the accused was liable for conviction under section 75 (1) (c) of the Madras City Police Act. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the conviction of the petitioner is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision is allowed, the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner are set aside and the fine amount, if any paid, is directed to be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed.