( 1 ) THE applicant Zafar Ahmad Khan, resident of Qasba Sandila, district Hardoi, has been found guilty of an offence under Section 294, I. P. Code, and has been sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment by a Magistrate first class, Lucknow. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow. Aggrieved he has come up in revision to this Court.

( 2 ) THE case against the applicant was that on the date of occurrence, two young girls belonging to the family of one Nasir Mian of Lucknow engaged the rickshaw of Tafazzul P. W. in victoriaganj, Lucknow, and proceeded on it towards Nakkhas. The applicant, who happened to be present near the place where the two girls boarded Tarazzuls rickshaw, engaged the rickshaw of P. W. snanansnan and asked the latter to follow up the rickshaw of the girls. Shahanshah took the impression that the applicant was a relation of the two girls, hence he obeyed the direction of the applicant and went behind Tafazzuls rickshaw. Near the Patharwala Kuan the chain of tafazzuls rickshaw went off the free wheel and he got down to set it right. The applicant stopped his rickshaw also and addressing the two girls, he uttered the following words In the hearing of the rickshaw-wallas and some others:

"ao MERI JAN MERRY RICKSHEY PER BAITHJAO MAIN TUMKO pahunchadoonga MAIN TUMHARA INTIZAR KAR RAHDA HUN. "

The girls resented the applicants misbehaviour and scolded him. Some more people collected at the spot and they also felt annoyed at the applicants misconduct.

( 3 ) SHAHANSHAH then took the applicant to police station Chowk where he lodged a report and handed over the applicant to the police. Investigation followed and the applicant was prosecuted.

( 4 ) THE applicant pleaded not guilty and denied the Incident. He stated that he was falsely implicated in the crime on account of his enmity with one Sri Habit, an Inspector in the local police. He gave details of his enmity with the said Sri Habib. According to him he was called to the police station Kotwali by two constables and then case was concocted against him.

( 5 ) THE prosecution examined three witnesses, namely Tafazzul and Shahanshah, the two rikshaw-wallas, and one Amjad to prove the applicants offence. The applicant produced four witnesses in support of his defence.

( 6 ) THE lower courts accepted the statements of the prosecution witnesses and disbelieved the evidence of the defence witnesses. Holding the prosecution case proved against the applicant, they convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

( 7 ) THE concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts are not open to challenge in a revision.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant has, however, challenged his conviction on some legal grounds. He has argued that even assuming that the applicant uttered the words attributed to him in the presence of the two girls, it does not amount to an "obscene act" within the meaning of section 294, I. P. Code. According to the learned counsel the words do not amount to obscenity, though they may not be a very polite form of address. I find myself unable to agree with the learned counsel. There is no statutory definition of the word "obscene". In support of his argument the learned counsel for the applicant has relied on two authorities and according to him the words uttered by his client are not covered by the interpretation of the word "obscene" given in those authorities. He has first referred to Radins Law Dictionary where "obscene" has been defined as:

"a term applied to acts or words or representations that shock public ideas of sexual purity or modesty. The test for obscenity has been said to be whether the words would tend to defame the morals of persons who would see the publication by suggesting lewd thoughts and exciting sensual desires. "

Next he has referred to the case, State v. Thakur Prasad, 1958 All LJ 578 : (AIR 1959 All 49), wherein a Bench of this Court held :"the word "obscene" though not defined in