JUDGMENT 1. This is a reference under sec. 438, Cr. P.C. made by the Sessions Judge of Bankura at the instance of two persons who have been convicted by the Deputy Magistrate of Bankura under sec. 504, I. P.C. It appears that an application was made by the residents of village Chhatarkanali to the District Magistrate and Collector for funds to enable them to dig a well. On the 26th February 1916, Maulavi Ahmed, the Deputy Magistrate, proceeded to the locality to enquire into the matter. He was respectfully received on arrival and was given a chair. In the course of the discussion which followed, he observed to some of the people gathered round him that as it would take six weeks to excavate a well, the drought would be over by that time. To this Jaykrishna Samanta, one of the accused, answered that it would take only 10 days and added that he was a P.W.D. Contractor at Ranchi. The Deputy Magistrate says that this was said in a "loud, excited, and angry tone, in fact that the tone appeared to him to be "insolent." The discussion, however, proceeded, and the Deputy Magistrate later on observed that as some of the residents were well-to-do, they must make the well themselves. At this the two accused said This is not very good Bengali and the word is obviously unmeaning in this context. The whole may be translated as follows: "Then why do you make an enquiry, go away quietly." The Deputy Magistrate says that he felt insulted and provoked by this; so, a week later he preferred a complaint against the two persons before Mr. H.D. Mallik, the Sub-divisional Officer, who directed the prosecution of Jaykrishna Samanta and Nogendranath Sao under sec. 504, I.P.C. They were summarily tried by another Deputy Magistrate, Mr. L.B. Das, who convicted them and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 75 each, on default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The Sessions Judge has recommended that the convictions and sentences be set aside. He adds that the petitioners have offered to build the well with Rs. 150 and have said that they intended no discourtesy; the District Magistrate is fully satisfied with this amende. We are of opinion that the conviction cannot be sustained. 2. The Sessions Judge has recommended that the convictions and sentences be set aside. He adds that the petitioners have offered to build the well with Rs. 150 and have said that they intended no discourtesy; the District Magistrate is fully satisfied with this amende. We are of opinion that the conviction cannot be sustained. 2. Sec. 504 provides that whoever intentionally insults and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment or with fine or with both. The ingredients essential for a conviction under sec. 504 are consequently threefold, first, intentional insult, secondly, provocation there from, and, thirdly, intention that such provocation should cause or knowledge that such provocation was likely to cause, the person so insulted, to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The term "insult" signifies, as stated in the Oxford dictionary, "to treat with offensive disrespect, to offer indignity to." Such insult may be inferred not merely from the words used, but also from the tone and manner in which the words are spoken. Assume that the rudeness in this case amounted in an insult; was it intentional, that is, done on purpose? It is difficult to see why the accused should have, on purpose, offered an insult to the Deputy Magistrate. They were obviously irritated at his attitude, and their disappointment was probably keen when they realised that Government aid would not be recommended. In the next place, it is not every intentional insult which is criminally punishable; it must be shown that the accused intended or knew it to be likely that the provocation would cause the Deputy Magistrate to break the public peace or to commit some other offence. Though the Deputy Magistrate in his evidence states that he felt provoked, he does not say that the provocation was of such a degree as was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Though the Deputy Magistrate in his evidence states that he felt provoked, he does not say that the provocation was of such a degree as was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. No doubt, the law makes punishable an insulting provocation which under ordinary circumstances would cause a breach of the peace to be committed, even though in the particular case the person insulted does not commit a breach of the peace; but we are not able to hold that the rudeness on the part of the accused, such as it was, was either intended by them to lead to a breach of the peace or was known to them to be likely to lead to such breach or to the commission of some criminal act. In our opinion, the elements necessary to sustain a conviction under sec. 504 have not been established. We are also of opinion that the salutary provisions of sec. 95, which according to Stephen (History of Criminal Law, Vol. III, 307), might well be adopted even in the Law of England, completely covers the present case. We accordingly accept the recommendation of the Sessions Judge, set aside the convictions and sentences and direct that the fines, if paid, be refunded.