K.N. Mudaliyar, J.
1. The petitioner Pitchaiah Pillai seeks to revise his conviction under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act (III of 1888). The only question that arises in this case is whether the words attributed to the accused (petitioner) as proved by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6, do constitute indecent or disorderly behaviour in any public place. The Counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that the occurrence has taken place in a public place. The prosecution case is that the petitioner came to the front of a pial in the house of P.W. 6 at Kadambur. P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 were also there. P.W. 1, the complainant is the karnam of Kadambur and he was talking to the Executive Officer on the pial. At that time, the petitioner came there and questioned P.W. 2 as to what happened to the pipe connection to the house of one Chidambara Nadar applied for by him to the Panchayat Board. P.W. 2 replied that the matter was settled amicably with the assistance of the karnam. Thereupon, the petitioner used obscene language against P.W. 1 as follows:
What for this karnam has come up here? What does he know? Son born of pudendum muliebre (Obscene in tamil affecting the character). He should be beaten by chappal.
Then P.W. 1 questioned the petitioner. He was further abused by the petitioner. A crowd gathered and the appellant went away. Substantially, P.Ws. 1 to 5 speak to this version of the prosecution case. P.W. 6 states that the petitioner abused P.W. 1 in filthy language. P.W. 1 questioned the propriety of the behaviour of the petitioner and then he went away. Both the Courts below have accepted the entire evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6. I see no reason to differ from the Courts below in accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 6 in this matter. The question is whether this will tantamount to disorderly or indecent behaviour. It is argued before me on the authority of the ruling in K.J. Verghese v. State : AIR1950Mad789 , that this behaviour of the petitioner in abusing P.W. 1 in a public place may be bad behaviour, but may not amount to indecent behaviour. I am not able to accept this argument. The language is so filthy and outrageous and the petitioner uttered it in the presence of six prosecution witnesses. Certainly, it amount to disorderly or indecent behaviour within the meaning of Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act. Behaviour can be seen and spelt out only from the words uttered. The utterance of the language quoted above, in my opinion, does constitute disorderly or indecent behaviour The utterance of the words found in the ruling is not to be compared with the language employed by the petitioner against P.W. 1 in this case. The other ruling cited by the Counsel for the petitioner is Kannammal, In re (1966) L.W. 57 and it is certainly not helpful to him. That was a case where a Police Officer giving evidence cannot be permitted to virtually pronounce a judgment by merely using the words of the section without furnishing any detail. In fact in this case all the particulars of the abusive language indicating the behaviour of the petitioner are given and proved. Anantanarayanan, J. as he then was, observes:
The ingredients of the offence are acts which can be interpreted as amounting to riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour in a public street. Behaviour might either be physical movements of the body, or words uttered by a person or compounded of both.
Judged from the standpoint of the words uttered by the petitioner, I have no doubt that they do constitute disorderly or indecent behaviour within the mischief and ambit of Section 75 of the Act. There are no other merits in this revision petition. The conviction is correct and proper. The revision petition is dismissed.