S. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order of conviction under section 120 (b) of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and sentence of Rs. 30/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three days, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Bhubaneswar, in G. R. Case No. 2545 of 1983. ( 2 ) IT has been found by the learned Magistrate that on 8. 12. 1983 at about 10p. M. at Khurda Road Railway Station when P. W. 3, a T. T. E. of the South Eastern Railway, took exception to the petitioners loading excess fish inside a wagon and wanted to report the matter to the Station Superintendent, the petitioners threatened to see him after office hours. On this finding the learned Magistrate has recorded the aforesaid orders of conviction and sentence. ( 3 ) THE two simple points urged on behalf of the petitioners are:i. Section 120 (b) of the Indian Rail ways Act does not provide a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of fine and hence the default sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate is without jurisdiction and bad in law. ii. The aforesaid finding does not amount to an offence within the meaning of section 120 (b) of the Indian Railways Act. ( 4 ) ON the first point section 67 of the Indian Penal Code provides the answer to the question. The law on the point is settled by the apex court in the decision in the case of Basiruddin Ashraf v. State of Bihar. That was a case under section 65 or the Bihar Waqfs Act, 1947. It was contended that as section 65 did not provide for any imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the appellant could not be sentenced to simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine. It was held by their Lordships that section 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (equivalent to section 30 of 1973 Code) read with sections 40 and 67 of the Indian Penal Code is a clear answer to the contention. In the premises, the first point urged on behalf of the petitioners is devoid of any force. ( 5 ) ON the other point, however, the revision must succeed for the following, reasons: The conviction is for use of abusive language. In the premises, the first point urged on behalf of the petitioners is devoid of any force. ( 5 ) ON the other point, however, the revision must succeed for the following, reasons: The conviction is for use of abusive language. According to the petitioners Advocate, the finding at best amounts to a theatening and not to use of abusive language. The word abuse, according to Chamberss Dictionary, means to make bad use of; to revile. The word revile means to assail with bitter abuse. The word threat means a declaration or indication of an intention to inflict, punish or hurt. The word threatent means to indicate danger of. Applying the meaning of the above words, it cannot be said that threat by the petitioners to P. W. 3, the T. T. E. , to see him after his office hours amounted to using abusive language. Consequently the conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate against the petitioners for using abusive language cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) THE revision is, therefore, allowed and the orders of conviction and sentence are set aside. Fine if already paid be refunded. Revision allowed.