JUDGMENT K. Nath, J. - This is an application, under Section 3971401, Cr.P.C. against the conviction of the applicant. Sheo Charan, of an offence under Section 353, 1. P. C. confirming the award of sentence of two months' rigorous imprisonment by the Munsif Magistrate. Rae Bareilly the appellate court acquitted Sheo Charan of the offences under Sections 504, 506 and 426, I.P.C. 2. Since a short legal question has arisen in this case, the revision has been heard on merits on arguments addressed by the learned counsel for both the parties. 3. According to the presentation case the proceedings of the Land Management Committee for allotment of land commented on July 1983 at about 2.p. and when Lekhpal Dhani Ram was doing the needful, along with his papers, which included the Proceedings Register, applicant, Sheo Charan, along with Mohd. Yaqub, Mobd. Haseeb and Mohd. Hamid, arrived at the place of the meeting, and all the four persons started abusing Lekhpal Dhani Ram in-side the Panchayat Ghar. They demanded the Proceedings Register and insisted that the Pattas be issued in favour of certain persons whose names were suggested by them. However, when Dhani Ram refused to act accordingly, on the ground that the recommended persons were not qualified for allotment of land, co-accused. Mohd. Yaqub took off his Shoe and banged it against the - abusing and threatening Lekhpal Dhani Ram with evil consequences: co-accused Mohd. Haseem and Mohd. Yaqub rushed at Lekhpal Dhani Ram, snatched some papers from him and tore off some of them including the Proceeding Register. subsequently, Dhani Ram Lekhpal proceeded for Rae Barcilly to inform the S.D.O. concerned, but on the way co-accused Moha. Hasceb stopped him on the point of it pistol and threatened to kill him if he proceeded further. However, some persons interceded and thereafter Lekhpal Dhani Ram proceed- ed to the police station where he lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of which all the four persons were prosecuted of offences under Sections 323, 426, 506, I.P.C. 4. The learned Magistrate convicted all the four persons in different ways. The lower appellate court acquitted Mohd. Hamid. maintained the conviction of all others. gave the benefit of Probation of First Offenders Act to Mohd. Haseeb. acquitted appellant Sheo Charan of the offences under Sections 504. The learned Magistrate convicted all the four persons in different ways. The lower appellate court acquitted Mohd. Hamid. maintained the conviction of all others. gave the benefit of Probation of First Offenders Act to Mohd. Haseeb. acquitted appellant Sheo Charan of the offences under Sections 504. 506 and 426, I.P.C. but confirmed his conviction and sentence under Section 353, I.P.C. He maintained the conviction and sentence of Mohd. Yaqub under Sections 353. 426 and 506 I.P.C. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant Sheo Charan points out that the only role assigned to applicant Sheo Charan was to have hurled abuses at Lekhpal Dhani Ram and if that role could not justify conviction for offences under Sections 504 and 506. I.P.C. it could not also justify a conviction under Section 353, I.P.C. Learned State counsel has pointed out that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also recorded a finding that accused Mohd.. Yaqub, Mohd. Haseeb and Sheo Charan had used criminal force against Lekhpal Dhani Ram. This finding, so far as Sheo Charan is concerned, is perverse and is not recorded by the appellate court to be based on any specific evidence. As already seen, the only case of the prosecution against Sheo Charan was that he joined the other accused persons in hurling abuses at Dhani Ram. It is noticeable that neither the trial court nor the appellate court has applied So, 34. 1. P.C. in connection with an) of the offences in respect of any of the accused persons. In this situation, it is the individual act of every accused which must establish the commission of an offence. The only legal finding of fact thus, against applicant Sheo Charan, is that he had hurled abuses, along with other co-accused, at Lekhpal Dhani Ram. A mere act of hurling abuses, in my opinion, is outside the scope of Section 353, 1.P.C, The section penalises an act of assault or use of criminal force. These expressions are defined in Sections 351 and 350, I.P.C. The essential condition of assault is use of a gesture or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation would cause any person to apprehend that the maker of the preparation is about to use criminal force . Hurling of abuses is neither a gesture nor a preparation to indicate use of criminal force. Section 349. Hurling of abuses is neither a gesture nor a preparation to indicate use of criminal force. Section 349. I.P.C. requires causing of motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion, or the like. As abuse does not cause any such motion or change of motion. The result is that the ingredients of Section 353, I.P.C. are not made out on the applicant could not be convicted of that offence. 6. The revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant Sheo Charan for the offence under Section 353, I.P.C.. are set aside. He is acquitted. 7. Sheo Charan who is in jail, shall he released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. 8. The release order shall be issued to the concerned authority without delay in any in any case not later than tomorrow.