Order.- The 1st accused in C.C.No. 95 of 1966 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate’s Court, Chengannur, is the revision petitioner, P.W.1 filed a complaint alleging that the accused committed offences punishable under sections 294(b), 323, 341 and 34, Indian Penal Code. The substance of the complaint is as follows: On 1st February, 1966, P.W. 1 went to the tea shop of one Bhaskara Pillai at about 9-00 p.m. for getting the price of milk supplied by him. The 1st and 2nd accused were present in the tea-shop at the time. The 1st accused on seeing the complainant called out: "Kazhuverada monae thandaikku pirakkadavanae’‘ and slapped him on his left cheek. The 2nd accused caught hold of him and pushed him. The learned Magistrate found that both the accused were guilty. He convicted the 1st accused of offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 323 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days for the offence punishable under section 294(b) and to pay a fine of Rs. 50, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section 323, Indian Penal Code. He convicted the 2nd accused of the offence punishable under section 341, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days. Both the accused filed appeals to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chengannur. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate confirmed the convictions and sentences so far as the 1st accused was concerned, and acquitted the 2nd accused. The only point argued was that the 1st accused has not committed an offence punishable under section 294 (b), Indian Penal Code by uttering the words above-mentioned. 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. Hicklin1Cockburn, C.J., laid down the test of ‘obscenity’ in these words: "....................the test of obscenity is 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 Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra2. This test has been uniformly followed in India. The Supreme Court has accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra2. In Samuel Roth v. U.S.A.3Chief 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. It may be that the words are defamatory of the complainant, but I do not think that the words are ‘obscene’ and would constitute an offence punishable under section 294(b), Indian Penal Code. I therefore set aside the conviction of the 1st accused under section 294(b)and the sentence of fine imposed upon him for that offence. The fine, if any, paid by him under that count will be refunded to him. The conviction of the 1st accused under section 323 and the sentence imposed for that offence are confirmed. The revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated. M.C.M. ----- Petition partly allowed.