N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J:

1. This case has come before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge found it unable to accept the views expressed in the decisions in P.T. Chacko v. Nainan Chacko (1967) KLT 799 and George v. State of Kerala (1968) KLT 219 regarding the test of ‘obscenity’ in Section 294(b) of I.P.C. According to the learned Single Judge the meaning given to the word ‘obscene’ in Section 292 IPC cannot be made applicable to Section 294 IPC. It was observed that a particular meaning given to a particular word for the purpose of a particular provision cannot be applied to another provision.

2. The aforesaid Crl.M.C. has been filed by the accused in C.C. No.148/2007 of Additional C.J.M. Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That case was taken cognizance on a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein alleging commission of offences punishable under section 294(b) and 504 IPC.

3. The petitioner contends that a reading of the complaint itself is sufficient to show that the petitioner has not committed the offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 504 of IPC. Hence she seeks to quash the proceedings C.C.148/2007 mentioned above.

4. Chapter XIV of the Indian Penal Code deals with offences affecting the public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals. Section 292, 293 and 294 come under that Chapter. Section 292 of IPC reads”

“292. Sale, etc., of obscene book, etc.-(1) For the purposes of sub-section any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt person, who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

(2) whoever-

(a) Sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes, produces or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever, or

(b) import, exports or conveys any obscene object for any of the purposes aforesaid, or knowing or

(c) having reason to believe that such object will be sold, let to hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(d) takes part in or receives profits from any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such obscene objects are for any of the purposes aforesaid, made, produced, purchased, kept, imported, exported, conveyed, publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(e) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any act which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from or through any person, or

(f) offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment or either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.”

5. it is argued that Sub Section (1) of Section 292 is clear on the point that the definition of the word ‘obscene’ is given only for the purpose of Sub Section 2 of Section 292 IPC and so the definition of the word ‘obscene’ obtained in Section 292(1) cannot have any application when the same word is to be interpreted in the context in which it is used in Section 294 IPC. The learned single Judge has observed that there is nothing in Section 294 IPC to hold that the meaning given to the word ‘obscene’ i