Holding of tea stall as public place.

The petitioner has been convicted by the Special First Class Magistrate, Shevapet, under section 75 of the Madras City Police Act, for having been guilty of indecent behaviour in a public place, that is a tea-shop and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10. The only point argued is that a tea-shop cannot be said to be a public place. ‘Public place’ is defined in section 3 of the Act as meaning a place including a road, street or way, whether a through fare or not, and a landing place to which the public are granted access or have a right to resort or over which they have a right to pass. In Mangubhai v. Emperor1, a hotel has been held to be a place to which the public are permitted to have access. In the Crown Prosecutor v. Moonooswamy2, an arrack-shop has been held to be a public place within the meaning of section 75. In Natarajan v. State3, a barber’s saloon has been held to be a public place, as denned in section 3 of the City Police Act. There is no doubt that a tea shop is a place to which the public can have access and they have a right to resort to a tea-shop and the keeper of the tea-shop cannot exclude any person who comes to his hotel to be served refreshments. It is, therefore, quite clear that the tea-shop in this case would be a public place and consequently it should be held that the petitioner has been rightly convicted for having behaved indecently in a public place.

The Criminal Revision Case is, therefore, dismissed.

V.M.K. ----- Revision dismissed.