JUDGMENT S. Zaheer Hasan, J. - This is a revision against the judgment and order passed by Sri R.P. Pandey, IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad dismissing the appeal of applicants and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Vlllth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Faizabad, whereby they were convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 353 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and three months' rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 504;34 and 506134, I P.C. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.. The appeal filed by the applicants was also dismissed. Hence this revision. 2. On August 2. 1978 at about 2.30 p. in. Sri Dharmendra Narain Verma, Tahsildar Sadar, Faizabad was working in his Chamber in Tehsil premises. The accused Chakradhar Singh. Munna Singh and one Rajaram Singh entered his Chamber. abused him and rolled up their sleeves with an intent to beat him because the Tahsildar had not made recommendations on the application of Munna Singh for licence of a gun on the application of Chakradhar accused to licence of a rile and on the application of Indra Bahadur Singh for licence of a revolver When the accused persons fried to attack they Tahsildar several persons came there and intervened. Dharmendra Naratn Verma Tahsildar (P. W. 1). Nab Nazir Ram Ghulam (P.W. 2). Peon Habib Ahmad (P.W. 3) and Reader Sheo Karan Nath (P.W. 4) were examined as eye-witnesses. The accused persons denied the charge. No charge-sheet was submitted against Rajarain Singh. The learned Munsif Magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused applicants as mentioned above. The matter went up in appeal was dismissed. Hence this revision. 3. The evidence shows that the accused persons held out threats and used abusive language. There is no evidence to show that actual words were used during the aforesaid incident. It is necessary that the actual words used or supposed to have been used by the accused which the complainant understood to be the words of insult etc. should be mentioned in the complaint or should be proved in evidence otherwise the court would not be in a position to decide whether the words used amount to intentional insult etc. In the second place, the words used which amounted to intentional insult should be such as to give provocation for the commission of breach of the peace. should be mentioned in the complaint or should be proved in evidence otherwise the court would not be in a position to decide whether the words used amount to intentional insult etc. In the second place, the words used which amounted to intentional insult should be such as to give provocation for the commission of breach of the peace. In a quarrel fifty words are hurled against each other Merely from the use of such words it cannot be said that the person concern; used the words with the requisite intention stated in Section 504, Indian Penal Code. An offence under this section by spoken words cannot be made out unless it is proved that those words were uttered with specific intention. When actual wards used have not been indicated nor proved there is no question of application of Section 504 or 506, I.P.C. vide K.P. Singh v. Attabuddin, AIR 1955 Patna 453; S.C. Das v. K.C. Roy, 1970 Cr. LJ 264; Ram Karan v. State, 1984 (21) ACC 59 (Bom) and Sadanand v. Lalit Mohan, 1972 Cr. LJ 1684. 4. It has been admitted that the accused persons did not attack (Hamla Nahin Kiva) and the words used are "Larhai Par Utaron Ho Gaya". the necessary details of which have not been mentioned. One wit ness has admitted that he could not say whether all or some of the accused persons roll. ed up their sleeves. Mere rolling up of sleeves would not amount to assault or use of criminal force. Sheo Karan Nath (P.W. 4) has stated "Kuchh Kaha Suni Ho Gayi". Ram Ghulam (P.W. 2) has stated that " Mulziman Se Taish Men Aakar Zor Zor Se Baten Ho Rahi Thin " So to my mind there is no evidence to connect the revisionists with offence punishable under Sections 353, 504 or 506, 1. P.C. It may be that they entered the chamber of the Tahsildar and enquired from him about their applications for licence etc. and thereafter in the heat of moment some altercation took place and thereafter people intervened. However, if any abusive language was used, no evidence was led to prove those actual words. No case has been made out against the revisionists. 5., The revision is allowed and the order of conviction sentence is set aside. The revisionists are acquitted of the charges referred ti above. They are on bail. However, if any abusive language was used, no evidence was led to prove those actual words. No case has been made out against the revisionists. 5., The revision is allowed and the order of conviction sentence is set aside. The revisionists are acquitted of the charges referred ti above. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds ate discharged.