( 1 ) MR. Trivedi however raised a point of law and contended that the ladies waiting room at this railway station cannot be said to be a plane to which the public have or are permitted to have access and therefore sec. 12 of the Act would have no application. He argued that Male passengers are excluded though they have railway tickets with them from entering this room and an entry into this room by a male passenger even with a railway ticket of the necessary class is prohibited and made punishable under sec. 119 of the Railways Act. A section of the public having been thus excluded from the use of this room would preclude the ladies waiting room from being a place to which the public have or are permitted to have access He contended that if the Legislature wanted the word public also to include a section of the public viz. only the female passengers with railway tickets of the necessary class the Legislature would have used the words the public or a section of the public. That not having been done we would not be justified to treat the ladies waiting room at this station as a place to which the public have or are permitted to have access. It is clear from sec. 12 that the important words in this part of the section are the words a place to which the public have or are permitted to have access. Now there can be no doubt that railway platforms are places to which any member of the public has and is permitted to have access. The fact that a platform pass is necessary for one to enter into such a platform makes no difference as the platforms are for the use and benefit of the public and the members of the public are therefore permitted to have access to such platforms. A condition may be attached to the entry by the public viz the possession of a platform pass. But such a condition obviously is to avoid over-crowding and is no restriction to the general permission given to the members of the public to have access to the platform. Likewise the public or municipal parks are places to which the public have or are permitted to have access. Similarly a municipal zoo would also be a public place as the public have or are permitted to have access. It may be that a condition may be attached to the entry at such places such as a ticket or a fee nevertheless that condition does not preclude such a park or zoo from being considered a place to which the public have or are permitted to have access. The test of a place being a public place is whether it is open to the members of the public or not even though there may be certain conditions attached to the entry or the use thereof. What is required is that such a place must be open for entry by an indeterminate number of the members of the public and must not be open only to a definite or a determinate number. The question as to the meaning to be attached to these words arose in Emperor v. Mangubhai Dahyabhai 32 Bom. L. R. 790. The accused there were found gambling in a hotel (tea shop) in the city of Surat. They were tried and convicted of the offence under sec. 12 of this Act and sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 100. 00. It was held by Mirza and Broomfield JJ. that the expression in a place to which the public have or are permitted to have access includes a hotel. A reference was made in this decision to two earlier decisions of the same High Court Emperor v. Hussein 8 Bom L. R. 22 and Emperor v. Chennappa 15 Bom. L R. 101. It is clear that the decision in Emperor v. Hussein was given prior to the date of the amendment of section 12 (a) which inserted into this section the words or thoroughfare or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access. With regard to the decision in Emperor v. Hussein the learned Judges in Emperor v. Mangubhai observed that though section 12 of the Act was quoted in the footnote of the report of the case it was not clear from the report whether the section which the Court was considering was the old section or the one since its am