JUDGMENT : Ray, J. - These three Petitioners were convicted by the Magistrate u/s 506, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I for one month each. On appeal to the Sessions Judge, the conviction was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to a fine of Rs. 50/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for one month. 2. The complainant's son is the owner of survey No. 479/4 of village Arjunapalli. Adjoining it is another plot which is survey No. 27 and belongs to the accused. The accused purchased this plot from the undivided brother of the complainant. The complainant (p.w. 1) had a suspicion that the Petitioners had amalgamated a portion of the plot with their own adjoining plot. Accordingly he applied to the Tahasildar for an Amin for measuring the plot and demarcating the boundary. The Amin (p.w. 5) went to the disputed site on 12-4-1965 and demarcated the boundary in the presence of both parties and some boundary pillars were erected. Then the parties dispersed. Later that day at about 3 P.M. the complainant (p.w. 1), the Amin (p.w. 5) and the Amin's peon were proceeding to another village. On the way near about the disputed land, they found the Petitioners sitting on the ridge of the disputed land. On seeing them, they started uprooting the boundary stones fixed by the Amin on the morning of that day. p.w. 1 protested. Petitioner. 1 was armed with a Kati and Petitioners 2 and 3 were armed with lathis. They rushed at the complainant, rebuked him and threatened him with assault. The Amin, his peon and other Bhadralokas, viz., p.ws. 2, 3 and 4 intervened and the matter subsided. The Petitioners thereafter left the place. The complainant thereupon reported the incident to the police and ultimately filed this complaint in Court. 3. The Petitioners were summoned under Sections 447 and 506, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate acquitted them of the charge u/s 447, but convicted them u/s 506 as aforesaid. On appeal, the conviction was maintained by the sessions judge, but the sentence was reduced. This revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence of the Sessions Judge. 4. The Petitioners were summoned under Sections 447 and 506, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate acquitted them of the charge u/s 447, but convicted them u/s 506 as aforesaid. On appeal, the conviction was maintained by the sessions judge, but the sentence was reduced. This revision has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence of the Sessions Judge. 4. The points urged on be half of the Petitioners are as follows: (i) In absence of a finding of intent which is one of the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal intimidation, the conviction is bad in law. The ingredients of Section 503 have not been made out; and (ii) The evidence of p.ws. 1 and 5 does not disclose that there was any threat of any injury to the complainant, and that the nature of threat was such that any alarm was caused to him there by. 5. Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is the penal section which provides for punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. Section 503 defines the offence. On an analysis of that section it is to be seen that the essential ingredients of the offence are: (a) Threatening a person with an injury. (b) The threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. The charge for this offence runs as follows: That you on or about the same day (12th April, 1965) same time at the same place you all threatened Joginath Sahu with intent to cause alarm in the mind of the said Joginath. The charge of course ill silent as to the manner of threat, but if the complainant and other witnesses have spoken to such manner, then the slight omission in the charge would not vitiate either the charge or the proceedings. The complainant on this point states as follows: 1 found the accused persons uprooting the boundary stones pitched by the surveyor on that day. When I along with Radha Charan objected the highhanded Action of the accused persons, the accused persons told the surveyor to leave me so that they will assault me. The complainant on this point states as follows: 1 found the accused persons uprooting the boundary stones pitched by the surveyor on that day. When I along with Radha Charan objected the highhanded Action of the accused persons, the accused persons told the surveyor to leave me so that they will assault me. Accused Bhikari was armed with a Kati, Kashi and Nakul were armed with lathis. Dandasi and Sada also came to the spot at that time. As the surveyor and my witnesses subsided the matter, the accused persons left the place. In cross-examination he further says: The accused persons rebuked me "Teli Sala Mangia Sale Taku Chadi Dia Ama Hani Debu Tanka Bada Bapanku Ta Hani Deichu Sia Kana Kariba. He further says that he was chased by the accused persons who threatened him with assault, but he did not take to his heels at this and in fact there was no assault. This indicates that the threat if any which was given by the Petitioners, was not intended to be carried out. The evidence of the complainant with regard to the abusive words used by the accused persons appears to be an embroidery of his story, because the complaint-petition is completely silent about it. p.w. 5 speaks a little differently from the complainant, on this part of the prosecution case. He says that the accused persons were not armed at an, but they threatened him with assault. The words of threat used by the accused persons were as follows: "Badei Debu, Mari Debu Piti Debu etc." Thus, there is variation as to the manner of threat alleged to have been administered by the accused persons. A mere threat would Dot constitute the offence of criminal intimidation unless it is a threat of an injury to the person' which causes him alarm. Therefore, the manner of threat is important, which, in this case has not been proved with sufficient clarity and consistency. There was absolutely DO visible reaction in the complainant following the alleged administration of threat from which it could be perceived that alarm had been caused to the complainant thereby. I have been taken through material evidence on record and I must pay that, no unambiguous finding can be returned that the complainant was alarmed in consequence of any threat. There was absolutely DO visible reaction in the complainant following the alleged administration of threat from which it could be perceived that alarm had been caused to the complainant thereby. I have been taken through material evidence on record and I must pay that, no unambiguous finding can be returned that the complainant was alarmed in consequence of any threat. So the prosecution having failed to prove this ingredient of the offence, conviction there under cannot be sustained. 6. With regard to the first point., I must pay that it is equally substantial. There is in fact no express finding of intent given by the Courts below. This is conceded by counsel for the opp. party. Intent is an essential ingredient and it must be established by evidence and must be found as a fact. Therefore on this ground also it is difficult to uphold the conviction. I would accordingly set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below and allow this revision, and acquit the Petitioners. The fines, if paid, shall be refunded. Final Result : Allowed