Judgment : The accused in C.C.No.198 of 1990 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, have filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. praying to call for the records in the said case and quash the same. 2. The first respondent has filed the charge sheet against the petitioners for offence under Secs.294(b) and 506(2), I.P.C. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: On 11. 1990 at 9.30 p.m. at Ambasamudram, Mukkudal Road in front of the advocate’s office of witness No.1 in the public place, the accused stood and A-2 had an aruval in his hands and with the common intention, the accused shouted at witness No.1 stating and also threatened him that they would cut off his hand and leg and also threatened that they would murder him and hence they are liable to be punished under Secs.294(B) and 506(2), I.P.C. 3. Miss.Shyamala, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the words alleged to have been used by the petitioners would not bring the case within the ambit of Sec.294-B, I.P.C. She would further submit that regarding offence under Sec.506(2), I.P.C. if the threat was an empty one, it would not be an offence under Sec.506(2), I.P.C. Per contra, Mr.K.V.Sridharan, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, would submit that any words which are indecent and offensive, would fall within the category of ‘obscene words’ and the words used in this case are highly indecent and offensive and so offence under Sec.294(b) is made out. He would further submit that the other allegations would clearly bring the case within Sec.506(2), I.P.C. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the rival counsels. I shall first take up the submissions regarding offence under Sec.294(b), I.P.C. Sec.294(b), I.P.C. reads as follows: "294. Obscene acts and songs: whoever, to the annoyance of others. (a)....... (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 for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both". The word "obscene" is not defined in Indian Penal Code. But there is reference to the word "obscene" in Sec.292, I.P.C. Sec.292(1) reads as follows: "292. Sale etc., of obscene books etc.: (1) For the purposes of sub-sec. The word "obscene" is not defined in Indian Penal Code. But there is reference to the word "obscene" in Sec.292, I.P.C. Sec.292(1) reads as follows: "292. Sale etc., of obscene books etc.: (1) For the purposes of sub-sec. (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises of two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it“. The very reading of the section would show that only for the purpose of sub-sec. (2) the word “obscene” is defined in the manner specified therein. But yet it is indicative of the meaning of the word” “obscene”. 5. In Jafar Ahmad Khan v. State, A.I.R. 1963 All. 105, a single Judge of the Allahabad High Court had pointed out that no precise or arithmetical definition of the word “obscene” which would cover all possible cases can be given. It will have to be judged on the facts of each case whether in the context of its surroundings the questioned act is obscene or not. In the Lexicon Webster Dictionary, meaning of “obscene” is given as “objectionable or repugnant to acceptable standards of decency of morality; indecent pornographic; offensive in language or action: tending to incite lust or depravity”. 6. In P.T.Chacko v. Nainan Chacko 1967 M.L.J. (Crl.) 815, the Kerala High Court had occasion to consider “obscenity” with reference to Sec.294(b), I.P.C. The learned Single Judge had observed as follows: “The only point argued was that the 1st accused had not committed an offence punishable under Sec.294(b), Indian Penal Code by uttering the words abovementioned. The courts below have held that the words uttered were obscene and the utterance caused annoyance to the Public. I am not inclined to take this view. The courts below have held that the words uttered were obscene and the utterance caused annoyance to the Public. I am not inclined to take this view. In The Queen v. Hicklin, Cockbura, C.J. laid down the test of ‘obscenity’ in these words: “.....the test of obscenity in this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.” This test has been uniformly followed in India. The Supreme Court has accepted the correctness of the test in Ranji D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra. In Samuel Roth v. U.S.A., Chief Justice Warren said that the test of ‘obscenity’ is the “Substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing lustful desires.” Mr.Justice Harlan observed that in order to be ‘obscene’ the matter must”tend to sexually impure thoughts“. I do not think that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency”. With respect, I agree with the view expressed by the Kerala High Court, I am fortified in expressing such a view by the indication given in Sec.292, I.P.C. with regard to the obscene books. 7. If the words uttered in this case are examined, in the light of the test, with which I have agreed, evidently it would not satisfy the test. The words used might have no doubt annoyed the person towards whom those words were used. It may be vulgar words. But they cannot be equated to “obscene” words. So I accept the first submission made by Miss.Shymala that the allegations would not make out the offence under Sec.294(b), I.P.C. 8. Regarding the offence alleged under Sec.506(2), I.P.C. the allegations made in the charge sheet make out the ingredients of the said offence. It cannot be said that it was an empty threat because A-2 was having an aruval in his hand at the time when he made this threat. So if these allegations are substantiated, an offence under Sec.506(2), would be made out. 9. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in part and the prosecution is quashed so far as offence under Sec.294(B), I.P.C. is concerned. The case can be proceeded with so far as offence under Sec.506(2) is concerned. This petition is ordered accordingly.