JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The Petitioner has been convicted u/s 504, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to; R.I. for 2 weeks. The prosecution case is that on 12-8-1963 at about 9.30 a.m. the B.D.G. of Soro (p.w.1) was working in his office. The Head Clerk (p.w.2) was putting up papers before him. The Petitioner in the company of 12 to 13 persons came to the office of p.w.1 and demanded from him why Hemendra Kar, a teacher in Tendapara P. School was transferred. P.w.1 referred him to the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, who alone was competent to deal with the transfer of teachers Without heeding to the advice of p.w.1, the Petitioner took his seat on the chair of the Head Clerk without any permission. Then the Petitioner told the B.D.O. in a threatening tone that he was giving the last warning and if the latter did not give them a teacher of their liking, they would see what they could do. P.w.1 asked the Petitioner to wait outside. P.w.2 told the Petitioner that it was improper on his part to sit on his chair without prior permission and asked him to vacate it. The Petitioner vacated the chair but told p.w.2 that it was not his father's property, that it had been prepared with their money and that they had a right to do whatever they liked. Despite the request of the B.D.O., the Petitioner did not go out of the room. Apprehending trouble, the B.D.O. sent a peon to call the Thana Officer. Then alone the Petitioner and his followers left the office room and waited outside. The Thana Officer arrived at the spot. P.w.2 gave a written report (ext. 1) with the endorsement of p.w.l. thereon. The defence was that the Petitioner was falsely implicated due to party faction in the village. 2. The Courts below, after discussion of the evidence, accepted the prosecution case as true in the manner set forth above. The finding has not been assailed by Mr. Kundu as being contrary to evidence. He, however, contended that on the finding no offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code has been made out. 3. 2. The Courts below, after discussion of the evidence, accepted the prosecution case as true in the manner set forth above. The finding has not been assailed by Mr. Kundu as being contrary to evidence. He, however, contended that on the finding no offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code has been made out. 3. Section 504, Indian Penal Code runs thus Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives revocation 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 of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both Under the section, two essentials are required (i) There must be intentional insult of a person and thereby provocation would be caused to him, and (ii) The person insulting must intend or know it to be likely that such provocation would cause the person insulted to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. An offence under the section does not necessarily involve breach of the peace. It involves only an intention to provoke a breach of the peace or knowledge that the provocation given is likely to care a breach of the public peace. 4. Mr. Kundu contends that the words used by the Petitioner merely amount to a breach of good manners and no offence has been committed u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. According to him, the remarks were couched in uncultured language and were nothing more than a pompous show that the office chair was a social property. The remark at the worst amounted to vulgar abuse and could not be characterised as an insult. Reliance has been placed on a plethora of authorities some of which are Philip Rangel v. Empero AIR 192 Bom 193, Nasir Khan v. Emperor AIR 1935 Pesh 122., Mohammed Ibrahim faracayar v. Ismail Maracayae AIR 1949 Mad 760 and Abraham Vs. State and Another, 5. Intention or knowledge is necessary to constitute an offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. Whether there was intention or knowledge would depend upon the surrounding circumstances of each case and no rule of general application can be formulated. Use of abusive language may constitute an integral part of insult by conduct. State and Another, 5. Intention or knowledge is necessary to constitute an offence u/s 504, Indian Penal Code. Whether there was intention or knowledge would depend upon the surrounding circumstances of each case and no rule of general application can be formulated. Use of abusive language may constitute an integral part of insult by conduct. It there is nothing insulting in the conduct of the accused, apart from the language used, Courts have sometimes held that an offence under the section has not been established. The language so used may merely constitute an abuse evidencing bad manners. Where, abusive language is used in a loud and insolent tone, the conclusion may be other wise. No hard and fast rule can be laid down and each case must be determined with reference to its own facts and circumstances. Mohammed Ibrahim Maracayar v. Ismail Maracaya AIR 1949 Mad 760, is a case where a father in Vellore wrote a letter to his daughter in Madras embodying matters insulting and provocating to her and to her husband. In the facts and circumstances of that case and the relationship between the parties, it was held that the case would not fall u/s 504, Indian Penal Code as there was no likelihood of breach of the peace. Bheema Rao v. Venkat Rao AIR 1904 Mys 185 illustrates a case where an advocate, while cross-examining a witness, used filthy words exhibiting disrespect or indignity towards the mother of the witness. It was held that the intention to insult was clear and the words used came within the chief of Section 504, Indian Penal Code. The facts in Philip Rangel v. Empero AIR 192 Bom 193, show that the accused was one of the 26 persons who had requisitioned the meeting of the shareholders of a company. In the meeting it was proposed by the complainant that the requisitionists should be expelled. The accused got angry and said that even the Governor-General could not expel the members from the company. The accused left the room immediately and while leaving the room he uttered the words "you dam bloody bastard and cads". These words were overheard by some members who invited the attention of the Chairman to the same. Chief Justice Sir John Beaumount held that the words were merely terms of vulgar abuse. The accused left the room immediately and while leaving the room he uttered the words "you dam bloody bastard and cads". These words were overheard by some members who invited the attention of the Chairman to the same. Chief Justice Sir John Beaumount held that the words were merely terms of vulgar abuse. The accused did not know the antecedent of the forty members present there and the words were not to be taken literally. His Lordship, however, made the following observations as to essential ingredients of Section 503, Indian Penal Code No doubt the use of the abusive language may form an important part of an insult by conduct. But in this case there was nothing in the accused's conduct apart from the language he used. He did not adopt a loud and insolent tone and indeed did not intend his remark to be heard. I think, therefore, there was no intention to insult These observations pithily gives the correct exposition of law. In Abraham Vs. State and Another, the insulting words came to be uttered towards the end of a conversation between the complainant and the accused. Immediately after uttering the words the accused left the place. In those circumstances, Justice Annachandy held that the requisite intention was absent and an offence was not made out. 6. To sum up the legal position, the rule that abusive language would not bring a case within the chief of Section 504, Indian Penal Code is too widely stated. It would depend upon the acts and circumstances of each care. If the abusive language is intentionally used so as to cause provocation, the accused thereby intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause the complainant to break public peace or to committed other offence, the abusive language would come within the chief of the section. The facts and circumstances of this Cross are tell-tale. The Petitioner did not approach the B.D.O. in order to represent grievances of the people that the teacher, who was doing good work in the locality, should not be transferred. On the contrary, the authority of the B.D.O. was questioned. The B.D.O.'s direction that the accused and his party should approach the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, who alone was competent to deal with the matter of transfer, was not obeyed. On the contrary, the authority of the B.D.O. was questioned. The B.D.O.'s direction that the accused and his party should approach the Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti, who alone was competent to deal with the matter of transfer, was not obeyed. Despite the advice of p.w.1, the accused took his seat on the chair of the Head Clerk and gave threat to p.w.1. He adopted the threatening words" DEKRILA KAMA KARIBU" as is usually complained against some guided politicians of the present day. He very violently reacted to the protest of p.w.2 that he should not have occupied his chair without permission and used insulting words that the chair was not the property of p.w.2's father. Though after the protest the Petitioner vacated the chair, he did not leave the office room until a peon was deputed to call the Officer-in-Charge of the police station. From the facts and circumstances narrated above, it is clear that the Petitioner intentionally insulted the B.D.O. and the Head Clerk whereby he gave provocation to the latter knowing it likely that the provocation so given would cause p.w.2 to break the public peace. Doubtless p.w.2 did not in fact cause breach of the public peace. But the section does not require that in fact there would be a breach of the public peace; it merely prescribes the intention or knowledge on the part of the accused that the provocation given is likely to cause a breach of the public peace. That the provocation was likely to cause a breach of the public peace is amply established by the fact that p.w.1 sent for the Officer-in-Charge of the police station to come to the spot to handle the situation. For reasons discussed I am satisfied that the conviction is well founded. On the question of sentence, I am, however, of opinion that a substantive sentence of imprisonment need not be imposed. The Petitioner appears to be a person entertaining confused and inflated notions of his social responsibilities. He ha been much influenced by the evils of the time through which we are passing. He entertained It flamboyant thought that in the interest of education and welfare of the locality, officials can be coerced in their duty. To me he appears to be a guided youth. Sentence of imprisonment is likely to mar his future. He ha been much influenced by the evils of the time through which we are passing. He entertained It flamboyant thought that in the interest of education and welfare of the locality, officials can be coerced in their duty. To me he appears to be a guided youth. Sentence of imprisonment is likely to mar his future. In the circumstances, a sentence of fine would meet the ends of justice. He is accordingly sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 501/ - (Rupees fifty), in default, to undergo R.I. for two (2) weeks. Subject to the aforesaid modification on the question of sentence, the revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed