Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-NAG:2346
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 189 OF 2017
Prashant s/o Ashok Satralkar
Aged about 55 years,
Occ. Ex-servicemen, R/o All Saints
House Compound, Opp VCA-Sadar,
Nagpur 440001 APPLICANT
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through PSO, Sadar
Police Station, Nagpur
NON-APPLICANT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the applicant.
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for non-applicant /State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 05 .02.2026
O R A L J U D G M E N T :
1. By this revision the applicant challenges the judgment
and order of conviction passed in Regular Criminal Case
nd
No.148/2010 by 2 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur
dated 15.04.2015 by which the applicant is convicted of the
offence punishable under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in
default to suffer three months simple imprisonment. He is further
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
2
convicted of the offence punishable under Section 506-B of the
IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of
payment of fine three months simple imprisonment and the
modified sentence in Criminal Appeal No.145/2015 by Additional
Sessions Judge, 7, Nagpur by which the sentence of fine is
reduced to Rs.3,000/- of the offence punishable under Section 506
Part II of the IPC and Section 294 of the IPC and directed to pay
the compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the informant.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-
The informant Paul s/o Prabhudas Dupare lodged the
report on an allegation that on 07.11.2009 the notice was issued
to the accused Prashant for vacating the house. On that count
when he was proceeding in front of the house of the complainant
abused him in filthy language. On the basis of the said report
police have registered crime against present applicant. Learned
Magistrate has framed the charge vide Exh.3. The accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the prosecution
the prosecution has examined in all four witnesses. Paul
Prabhudas Dupare PW-1 Informant vide Exh.15. PW-2 Velangini
vide Exh.18, PW-3 Paresh Ramdas Wanjari vide Exh.19 and PW-4
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
3
Dinesh vide Exh.21 Investigating Officer. After appreciating the
evidence the trial Court convicted the present applicant which is
confirmed in the appeal.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same
present criminal revision is preferred by the applicant on the
ground that learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court has not
considered that the ingredients of the offence itself is not
established which are required to constitute the offence. Mere
abuses are not sufficient to attract the offence punishable under
Section 294 (b) of the IPC. The ground further raised in the
revision application is that there is no whisper by any of the
witnesses that due to the use of the words by the present applicant
there was some annoyance either to the complainant or to the
society members and therefore, the offence is not made out.
4. None present for the applicant.
5. Heard learned APP for the State. Perused the entire
evidence on record.
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
4
6. Considering the scope of the revision it is to be seen
whether the judgment and order of the conviction passed by the
trial Court as well as the Appellate Court suffers from any
illegality, impropriety and calls for any interference. On
appreciation of the evidence it reveals that the prosecution mainly
placed reliance on evidence of PW-1 Paul Prabhudas Dupare who
reiterated in his evidence that alleged incident occurred on
07.11.2009 in the premises of church compound at about 5.30
p.m. The said incident occurred as the work of the accused was
not satisfactory therefore, society dismissed his services. Notice
was also issued to him to vacate the house which was allotted by
the society. The accused threw the notice on his face and abused
in the obscene words. The accused abused him by saying
‘Madarchod’, ‘Bahind Chod’. ‘Mar Dalunga’, ‘Kat Dalunga’. The
accused assaulted the security guard Parvesh Wanjari. Therefore,
he approached to the police and lodged report. His report at
Exh.16 and FIR is at Exh.17. During his cross-examination it came
on record that many cases are pending against the accused in Civil
Court as well as in the Labour Court. It further came in the
evidence that accused has not vacated the house. Except this
cross-examination nothing is brought on record to incriminate the
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
5
evidence of PW-1. PW-2 Velangini is another witness who has not
supported the prosecution case and left the loyalty towards the
prosecution case.
7. PW-3 who is Paresh Wanjari has also not supported
the prosecution case and left the loyalty of prosecution case. He
even denied the fact that the incident occurred on 07.11.2009.
PW-4 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated about the
investigation carried out by him. As per his evidence report was
taken by Kamlesh Dubey and as the offence under Sections 294
and 506 of the IPC was made out, he registered the FIR and
carried out the investigation.
8. On the basis of the sole evidence of the complainant
nd
the accused came to be convicted by the 2 Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case No.148/2010 by
observing that the sole evidence of the informant is sufficient to
attract the offence. The same is confirmed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Nagpur by modifying the sentence and fine amount was
reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.3,000/- of the offence punishable
under Section 294 of the IPC and Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- for
the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC.
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
6
9. Section 294 which deals with the obscene acts and
songs. Relevant is the provision of section 294(b) which reads as
under:- Whoever, to the annoyance of others sings, recites or
utters any obscene song, 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.
10. Thus, for attracting the offence punishable under
Section 294 the words i.e. the obscene words should be to the
extent that the person affected by the said words felt annoyed and
there has to be some legal recognize to show that words uttered
by accused annoyed others. This aspect is considered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.S. Madan Gopal and another
vs. K. Lalita reported in (2022) 17 SCC 818 wherein it is laid
down that the test of obscenity under Section 294 (b) of the IPC
is “the test of obscenity is this “whether the tendency of the
matter charge as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those minds
and open to such immoral influences.” “This test has been
uniformly followed in India. The Hon’ble Apex Court has accepted
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
7
the correctness of the test in Ranjit D. Udeshi Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in Manu/SC 0080/1964 wherein the test
of “obscenity” is ‘substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing
lustful desires’. It 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 to the complainant, but I do not think the words
are “obscene” and the utterance would constitute an offence
punishable under Section 294(b) of IPC.
11. This aspect is further considered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors., reported in Manu/SC/0134/2025 and
observed that insofar as Section 294 of the IPC is concerned, this
Court in N.S. Madangopal and another Vs. K. Lalitha reported in
(2022) 17 SCC 818 has explained the true purport and scope of
Section 294 of the IPC. It is further observed that it has to be
noted that in the instant case the absence of words which will
involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or
feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b).
None of the records disclose the alleged words used by the
accused. It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
8
cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant
case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive,
humiliating or defamatory words by itself cannot attract an
offence under section 294(b) of the IPC. It is further observed
that mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there
must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance
of others which is lacking in the case.
12. In the light of the above observation of the Hon’ble
Apex Court if evidence in the present case is taken into
consideration the evidence of PW-1 informant nowhere stated that
due to the utterance of the word by the accused he felt annoyed or
the other members of the society. Thus in the absence of legal
evidence to show that the words uttered by the accused annoyed
others it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under
Section 294 (b) of IPC are made out. Thus, in the present case
except the abusive language there is no allegation at the most as
observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court it could be filthy words by
themselves and that is not sufficient to attract the offence under
Section 294 (b) of the IPC.
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
9
13. As far as Section 506 (2) of the IPC is concerned, it is
to be seen in the light of the definition of criminal intimidation
given under Section 503 of the IPC. For constituting the criminal
intimidation the essential ingredients are (i) threatening a person
with any injury (ii) to his person reputation or property or (iii) to
the person or reputation of any one in whom the person is
interested. To attract the section 506 (2) the threat must be with
intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do
any act which he is not legally bound to do, as the means of
avoiding the execution of such threat, or to cause that person to
omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as
the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
14. Thus, considering the scope of Section 506(2) of IPC
admittedly except the abuses there is nothing on record to show
that there was any threat which was caused to the complainant
with any injury. Therefore, offence under Section 506(2) is also
not made out.
15. In the light of the above observations admittedly the
nd
judgment passed by the 2 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nagpur and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
10
in which the basic ingredients which required for constituting the
offence are not considered by the both Courts.
16. It is well settled that sole testimony of the witness is
sufficient to warrant conviction when it inspires confidence. As far
as the evidence of PW-1 in the present case is concerned, which is
not sufficient even to infer that the offence under Section 294(b)
and 506(2) is made out.
17. Considering the scope of revision this Court interfere
in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Criminal
Procedure Code in a limited manner and therefore, it is not
expected to sit as a Court of appeal and re-appreciate the
evidence. However, when the finding of the courts below appear
to have been recorded on the basis of no evidence or evidence
which even if believed in entirely cannot prove the guilt of the
accused for the offences charge and therefore, it would be justified
in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
18. In view of this Criminal Revision filed by the applicant
deserves to be allowed.
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
11
19. On going through the entire evidence and on
examining the record the judgment and order of conviction passed
by the Judicial Magistrate and confirmed by the Appellate Court
appears to be suffering from infirmity and requires interference
from this Court and it is also without considering the basic
ingredients of the offence. In view of that both the judgments
appear to be incorrect and therefore, the interference is called for.
In view of that revision application deserves to be allowed.
20. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order.
(i) Criminal Revision is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case
No.148/2010 and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.145/2015 is
quashed and set aside.
21. Criminal Revision stands disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
12
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/02/2026 10:56:06
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 189 OF 2017
Prashant s/o Ashok Satralkar
Aged about 55 years,
Occ. Ex-servicemen, R/o All Saints
House Compound, Opp VCA-Sadar,
Nagpur 440001 APPLICANT
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through PSO, Sadar
Police Station, Nagpur
NON-APPLICANT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the applicant.
Mr. A.M. Kadukar, APP for non-applicant /State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 05 .02.2026
O R A L J U D G M E N T :
1. By this revision the applicant challenges the judgment
and order of conviction passed in Regular Criminal Case
nd
No.148/2010 by 2 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur
dated 15.04.2015 by which the applicant is convicted of the
offence punishable under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in
default to suffer three months simple imprisonment. He is further
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
2
convicted of the offence punishable under Section 506-B of the
IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of
payment of fine three months simple imprisonment and the
modified sentence in Criminal Appeal No.145/2015 by Additional
Sessions Judge, 7, Nagpur by which the sentence of fine is
reduced to Rs.3,000/- of the offence punishable under Section 506
Part II of the IPC and Section 294 of the IPC and directed to pay
the compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the informant.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-
The informant Paul s/o Prabhudas Dupare lodged the
report on an allegation that on 07.11.2009 the notice was issued
to the accused Prashant for vacating the house. On that count
when he was proceeding in front of the house of the complainant
abused him in filthy language. On the basis of the said report
police have registered crime against present applicant. Learned
Magistrate has framed the charge vide Exh.3. The accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the prosecution
the prosecution has examined in all four witnesses. Paul
Prabhudas Dupare PW-1 Informant vide Exh.15. PW-2 Velangini
vide Exh.18, PW-3 Paresh Ramdas Wanjari vide Exh.19 and PW-4
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
3
Dinesh vide Exh.21 Investigating Officer. After appreciating the
evidence the trial Court convicted the present applicant which is
confirmed in the appeal.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same
present criminal revision is preferred by the applicant on the
ground that learned trial Court as well as Appellate Court has not
considered that the ingredients of the offence itself is not
established which are required to constitute the offence. Mere
abuses are not sufficient to attract the offence punishable under
Section 294 (b) of the IPC. The ground further raised in the
revision application is that there is no whisper by any of the
witnesses that due to the use of the words by the present applicant
there was some annoyance either to the complainant or to the
society members and therefore, the offence is not made out.
4. None present for the applicant.
5. Heard learned APP for the State. Perused the entire
evidence on record.
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
4
6. Considering the scope of the revision it is to be seen
whether the judgment and order of the conviction passed by the
trial Court as well as the Appellate Court suffers from any
illegality, impropriety and calls for any interference. On
appreciation of the evidence it reveals that the prosecution mainly
placed reliance on evidence of PW-1 Paul Prabhudas Dupare who
reiterated in his evidence that alleged incident occurred on
07.11.2009 in the premises of church compound at about 5.30
p.m. The said incident occurred as the work of the accused was
not satisfactory therefore, society dismissed his services. Notice
was also issued to him to vacate the house which was allotted by
the society. The accused threw the notice on his face and abused
in the obscene words. The accused abused him by saying
‘Madarchod’, ‘Bahind Chod’. ‘Mar Dalunga’, ‘Kat Dalunga’. The
accused assaulted the security guard Parvesh Wanjari. Therefore,
he approached to the police and lodged report. His report at
Exh.16 and FIR is at Exh.17. During his cross-examination it came
on record that many cases are pending against the accused in Civil
Court as well as in the Labour Court. It further came in the
evidence that accused has not vacated the house. Except this
cross-examination nothing is brought on record to incriminate the
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
5
evidence of PW-1. PW-2 Velangini is another witness who has not
supported the prosecution case and left the loyalty towards the
prosecution case.
7. PW-3 who is Paresh Wanjari has also not supported
the prosecution case and left the loyalty of prosecution case. He
even denied the fact that the incident occurred on 07.11.2009.
PW-4 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated about the
investigation carried out by him. As per his evidence report was
taken by Kamlesh Dubey and as the offence under Sections 294
and 506 of the IPC was made out, he registered the FIR and
carried out the investigation.
8. On the basis of the sole evidence of the complainant
nd
the accused came to be convicted by the 2 Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case No.148/2010 by
observing that the sole evidence of the informant is sufficient to
attract the offence. The same is confirmed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Nagpur by modifying the sentence and fine amount was
reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.3,000/- of the offence punishable
under Section 294 of the IPC and Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- for
the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC.
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
6
9. Section 294 which deals with the obscene acts and
songs. Relevant is the provision of section 294(b) which reads as
under:- Whoever, to the annoyance of others sings, recites or
utters any obscene song, 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.
10. Thus, for attracting the offence punishable under
Section 294 the words i.e. the obscene words should be to the
extent that the person affected by the said words felt annoyed and
there has to be some legal recognize to show that words uttered
by accused annoyed others. This aspect is considered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.S. Madan Gopal and another
vs. K. Lalita reported in (2022) 17 SCC 818 wherein it is laid
down that the test of obscenity under Section 294 (b) of the IPC
is “the test of obscenity is this “whether the tendency of the
matter charge as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those minds
and open to such immoral influences.” “This test has been
uniformly followed in India. The Hon’ble Apex Court has accepted
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
7
the correctness of the test in Ranjit D. Udeshi Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in Manu/SC 0080/1964 wherein the test
of “obscenity” is ‘substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing
lustful desires’. It 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 to the complainant, but I do not think the words
are “obscene” and the utterance would constitute an offence
punishable under Section 294(b) of IPC.
11. This aspect is further considered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors., reported in Manu/SC/0134/2025 and
observed that insofar as Section 294 of the IPC is concerned, this
Court in N.S. Madangopal and another Vs. K. Lalitha reported in
(2022) 17 SCC 818 has explained the true purport and scope of
Section 294 of the IPC. It is further observed that it has to be
noted that in the instant case the absence of words which will
involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or
feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b).
None of the records disclose the alleged words used by the
accused. It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
8
cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant
case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive,
humiliating or defamatory words by itself cannot attract an
offence under section 294(b) of the IPC. It is further observed
that mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there
must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance
of others which is lacking in the case.
12. In the light of the above observation of the Hon’ble
Apex Court if evidence in the present case is taken into
consideration the evidence of PW-1 informant nowhere stated that
due to the utterance of the word by the accused he felt annoyed or
the other members of the society. Thus in the absence of legal
evidence to show that the words uttered by the accused annoyed
others it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under
Section 294 (b) of IPC are made out. Thus, in the present case
except the abusive language there is no allegation at the most as
observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court it could be filthy words by
themselves and that is not sufficient to attract the offence under
Section 294 (b) of the IPC.
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
9
13. As far as Section 506 (2) of the IPC is concerned, it is
to be seen in the light of the definition of criminal intimidation
given under Section 503 of the IPC. For constituting the criminal
intimidation the essential ingredients are (i) threatening a person
with any injury (ii) to his person reputation or property or (iii) to
the person or reputation of any one in whom the person is
interested. To attract the section 506 (2) the threat must be with
intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do
any act which he is not legally bound to do, as the means of
avoiding the execution of such threat, or to cause that person to
omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as
the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
14. Thus, considering the scope of Section 506(2) of IPC
admittedly except the abuses there is nothing on record to show
that there was any threat which was caused to the complainant
with any injury. Therefore, offence under Section 506(2) is also
not made out.
15. In the light of the above observations admittedly the
nd
judgment passed by the 2 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Nagpur and confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
10
in which the basic ingredients which required for constituting the
offence are not considered by the both Courts.
16. It is well settled that sole testimony of the witness is
sufficient to warrant conviction when it inspires confidence. As far
as the evidence of PW-1 in the present case is concerned, which is
not sufficient even to infer that the offence under Section 294(b)
and 506(2) is made out.
17. Considering the scope of revision this Court interfere
in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Criminal
Procedure Code in a limited manner and therefore, it is not
expected to sit as a Court of appeal and re-appreciate the
evidence. However, when the finding of the courts below appear
to have been recorded on the basis of no evidence or evidence
which even if believed in entirely cannot prove the guilt of the
accused for the offences charge and therefore, it would be justified
in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
18. In view of this Criminal Revision filed by the applicant
deserves to be allowed.
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
11
19. On going through the entire evidence and on
examining the record the judgment and order of conviction passed
by the Judicial Magistrate and confirmed by the Appellate Court
appears to be suffering from infirmity and requires interference
from this Court and it is also without considering the basic
ingredients of the offence. In view of that both the judgments
appear to be incorrect and therefore, the interference is called for.
In view of that revision application deserves to be allowed.
20. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order.
(i) Criminal Revision is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case
No.148/2010 and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.145/2015 is
quashed and set aside.
21. Criminal Revision stands disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
66 revn 189.17.odt..odt
12
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 12/02/2026 10:56:06