ORDER P.R. Sharma, J. This is an application for revision against the order dated the 18th of February, 1958 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 252 of 1957whereby he confirmed the order of conviction under Section 506, Indian Penal Code and sentence of fine of Rs.25 passed on 1-11-57 in Criminal Case No. 3785 of 1957 by the Magistrate First Class Jabalpur. The case was started on a complaint filed by Mst. Mulli stating that the house in which she had been living had been wrongfully sold by one Chunna Musalman to Dulare Khatikthe real brother of accused Mathura. Mathura wanted Mulli to vacate the house. The complainant Mulli was not agreeable to this proposal and she, therefore, called a Panchayat on 18-10-55 at her house. Accused Mathura is alleged to have told the complainant at the time when the proceedings of the Panchayat were about to commence . The accused was on these facts tried and convicted of an offence under Section 506, Indian Penal Code and sentenced as already stated above. It has been held as proved by the two Courts below on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 2-Mulli, P.W. 3-Ramprasad, P.W. 4-Shaikh Alfu and P.W. 5-Nanne that the accused had addressed to the complainant the remark aforesaid. I do not feel called upon in exercise of my revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of the two Courts below in this behalf which is based on a pure question of appreciation of evidence. The only question that, therefore, remains to be considered is whether the words uttered by the accused constitute an offence under Section 506, Indian Penal Code. It was argued by the Learned Counsel for the applicant that these words which were spoken in the heat of the moment and in the course of an altercation are of a casual nature and cannot, therefore, be said to have been uttered with intent to cause alarm to Mulli. The provisions of Section 503, Indian Penal Code make it clear that if a person threatens another with injury to his person, reputation or property with intent to cause that person to do any act which that person is not legally bound to do, the act would amount to criminal intimidation. The provisions of Section 503, Indian Penal Code make it clear that if a person threatens another with injury to his person, reputation or property with intent to cause that person to do any act which that person is not legally bound to do, the act would amount to criminal intimidation. It is clear from the words used by the accused in this case that he told the complainant that she would be beaten and then alone she would vacate the house. The intention of the accused, therefore, clearly was to cause Mst. Mulli to vacate the house which she was not bound to do and to give her to understand that if she did not do so she would be subjected to violence against her person. This clearly amounts to an offence under Section 506, Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the accused under Section 506, Indian Penal Code is therefore, upheld. The sentence cannot in the circumstances of the case be said to be excessive. This revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed. Petition dismissed