Obscenity and public place under Section 294 IPC require proof of actual annoyance, while ticketed venues remain public places.

Section 294 IPC was construed strictly as a penal provision requiring proof of three elements: an obscene act, commission in a public place, and annoyance to others. Obscenity alone was held insufficient, and prosecution cannot rest on a presumed or objective standard without evidence of actual annoyance at the relevant time. A hotel or restaurant used for cabaret performances remains a public place even if entry is controlled by ticket purchase or payment; regulated admission does not convert the venue into a private place. The legal effect is that liability depends on proof of annoyance, while the character of the venue remains public.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an indecent and obscene cabaret performance, by itself, attracts Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of express evidence that anyone was annoyed; (ii) Whether a restaurant or hotel where cabaret dances are held, with entry restricted by purchase of tickets, is a public place within Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (i): Whether an indecent and obscene cabaret performance, by itself, attracts Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of express evidence that anyone was annoyed.

Analysis: Section 294 requires three elements: an obscene act, commission in a public place, and annoyance to others. The wording was treated as clear and unambiguous, and the provision was construed strictly as a penal statute. The presence of obscenity alone was held insufficient. The Court held that the statutory requirement of annoyance cannot be replaced by a presumed or objective standard of obscenity per se, and that evidence of actual annoyance at the relevant time is necessary.

Conclusion: No. An indecent or obscene act per se does not warrant prosecution under Section 294 in the absence of evidence of annoyance to others.

Issue (ii): Whether a restaurant or hotel where cabaret dances are held, with entry restricted by purchase of tickets, is a public place within Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: A place does not cease to be public merely because admission is regulated by ticket purchase or monetary payment. The Court held that a hotel or restaurant accessible to persons on payment remains a public place for the purposes of Section 294. Restriction of entry by price does not convert a public venue into a private place, and prior advertisement or high-priced entry cannot alter the statutory character of the place.

Conclusion: Yes. Such restaurants or hotels remain public places within the meaning of Section 294.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that obscenity alone is insufficient without proof of annoyance, but the venue of the cabaret performance remains a public place for the purpose of Section 294.

Ratio Decidendi: A penal provision must be construed strictly according to its plain language, and where annoyance to others is an express ingredient of the offence, prosecution cannot succeed on obscenity alone without proof of actual annoyance.

---