JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This second appeal is by the Plaintiff against the appellate judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Baripada, reversing the judgment of he Munsif of Baripada and dismissing the Plaintiff's suit for damages. 2. The Plaintiff alleged that there were two proceedings u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the First Class Magistrate of Baripada sometime in June 1954. In one of those proceedings the Defendant's father and some other persons were made the accused persons. They appeared in Court on 2-6-1954 but as they were unable to furnish security they were remanded to Hajat. The Plaintiff was also one of the accused in a counter-proceeding u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure pending before the same Magistrate. He alleged that 011 2-6-1954 when he came out from the Bar Library towards the Court-room of the Magistrate, the Defendant accosted him and abused him saying "Sala" it is for you that all this has happened" and then stretched forth his left hand with a view to clutch at the threat of the Plaintiff and raised his right hand with a view to give him a slap on his left cheek. The Plaintiff however moved his head away and thus escaped being slapped by the Defendant. The incident was noticed by several people in the Court premises, including P.W. 2. The Plaintiff alleged that he suffered mental agony on account of this public insult and claimed damages. The trial court believed the entire incident as alleged by the Plaintiff especially in view of the evidence of the Plaintiff's lawyer P.W. 2. He decreed damages to the extent of Rs. 200/-. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge did not give a clear finding as to whether he accepted the entire evidence of the Plaintiff as regards the incident. He thought that the Defendant merely used abusive words and did not actually assault the Plaintiff. But he added that the Defendant raised his hand demonstrating a threat that he would give him a slap. On this finding he thought that the case reported in Girish Chunder Mitter v. Jatadhari AIR 6 Cal. 653, would apply and that mere abusive words were not actionable, irrespective of any special damage. Hence he dismissed the suit. 3. The learned lower appellate Court has clearly committed an error. In Girish Chunder Mitter v. Jatadhari AIR 6 Cal. On this finding he thought that the case reported in Girish Chunder Mitter v. Jatadhari AIR 6 Cal. 653, would apply and that mere abusive words were not actionable, irrespective of any special damage. Hence he dismissed the suit. 3. The learned lower appellate Court has clearly committed an error. In Girish Chunder Mitter v. Jatadhari AIR 6 Cal. 653, on which he relied, apart from mere vulgar abuse no other act was attributed to the Defendant. Here, however, the Plaintiff has clearly stated that apart, from abusing him as 'Sala' the Defendant stretched forth his left hand towards the throat of the Plaintiff and raised his right hand to give him a slap. This portion of his evidence is fully supported by P.W. 2 who is a respectable lawyer of Baripada Bar. The lower appellate Court has not said that he disbelieved P.W. 2 on this point. This action of the Defendant would clearly amount to assault, even though the slap was not actually given to the Plaintiff due to other intervening causes such as the Plaintiff moving aside towards it off. As pointed out in Salmond on Torts (Twelfth Edition) page 295: The act of putting another person in reasonable fear or apprehension of an immediate battery by means of an act amounting to an attempt or threat to commit a battery amounts to an actionable assault. Mere words do not constitute an assault however insulting or menacing; the intent to do violence must be expressed in threatening acts and not merely in threatening speech. Even threatening acts do not constitute an assault unless they are of such a nature as to put the Plaintiff in fear of immediate violence. To shake ones fist in a mans face is an assault; to shake it at a man who by his distance from the scene of action is inaccessible to such violence, is none. Here there can be no doubt that apart from menacing words the Defendant by his action in raising his right hand for the purpose of giving a blow, in addition to using threatening words, made it absolutely clear that his intention was to give a slap to the Plaintiff. But he could not actually slap the Plaintiff because the latter moved aside. But he could not actually slap the Plaintiff because the latter moved aside. It is true that the Defendant had some provocation inasmuch as just a few minutes before the incident his father had been sent to jail in the proceeding u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure started at the instance of the Plaintiff. But whatever may be the provocation there was no justification for assaulting the Plaintiff at a public place near the Court premises thereby causing him considerable humiliation and insult. The Plaintiff appears to be a fairly respectable man being an Ex-President of the Grama Panchayat and also a member of the Mainitri Baidyanath Co-operative Society. 4. I am satisfied that the Defendant is guilty of actionable assault. As regards the quantum of damages the sum of Rs. 200/- estimated by the trial court appears to be somewhat excessive. Moreover the incident took place in the heat of the moment, when the Defendant was feeling provoked due to the remanding of his father to Hajat. Taking these circumstances into consideration, I think it will be sufficient if a sum of Rs. 50/- is awarded as damages. 5. I would therefore allow this appeal, set aside the reversing judgment of the lower appellate court and decree the Plaintiff's suit for damages to the extent of Rs. 50/- (Rupees fifty) only. The cross appeal is also dismissed. The Plaintiff will get his costs throughout. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed