It is no doubt true that intent is the essence of the offence of criminal trespass. The intention must be to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy a person in possession of the property. That intention must be the main intention in the action and not any subsidiary intention that may also be present. It must be the dominant intention; namely, the object for which effort was made. The mere fact that the natural consequence of the entry was known to be such as would annoy the person in possession would not necessarily show that the entry was made with intent to annoy. In the present case, the facts proved were such that there could be no other dominant intention than to intimidate or annoy. Even if the accused was a student of the college, he was not a Zoology student. He was a student of Maths and Science. He could have absolutely no business to enter into a Zoology laboratory room in which Zoology students were doing practical under the guidance of Zoology Professor and the members of his staff. Acting like a Lothario, the accused came inside and stood in the midst of girl students. He acted like a downright bully when on being properly questioned by the Professor as to why he had entered without seeking his permission, he used insulting language for the professor and even threatened him with life. He persisted in that rowdy behaviour when Assistant Professor Sethi and Lecturer 'Shrivastava tried to intervene. He gave them filthy abuses and uttered threats while leaving the room. He created a terrible Scene thoroughly. In the circumstances, what could have been his dominant intention except to intimidate or annoy? The accused in his defence gave no explanation for the entry but denied the entire incident altogether. There arose therefore no question that he could have a different dominant intention. Taking a hypothetical case, supposing for instance the accused upon being questioned by Professor Mowar, had answered that he had entered because he had urgent work with one of the students in the laboratory room, it could have been plausibly urged that although he entered into the room without seeking permission of the Professor, his dominant intention was to talk to one of the students, in connection with some urgent work and not to insult or annoy the Professor. But such was not the factual matrix in the present case. The case as established, as already seen, shows that the accused behaved like an unmitigated hoodlum and a rowdy element in the college. There could be no doubt that his dominant intention was to insult or annoy the Professor. The view of the learned trial Magistrate in acquitting the accused of the offence of criminal trespass was perverse. There is lot of indiscipline in educational campuses and if the view of the learned Magistrate were to prevail, there would be absolute anarchy. The police was telephoned and when the police arrived the Professor gave written report. The entire conduct of the Professor shows that he was alarmed. The admission made by him in the witness box that students often gave threats' to their Professors, was also explained by him by saying that threats are not given for causing death, like the accused did. This could hardly be utilised by the learned Magistrate to support his conclusion that no offence was committed. On the other hand, this showed the kind of indiscipline prevailing in educational institutions and should have been a ground to take a more serious view. There 'was no doubt that the' accused in purposely and calculatingly uttering threats to kill, committed the offence under section 506 Part II I.P.C. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of acquittal cannot be allowed to stand and must be set aside. The offences under sections 448 and 506 Part II I.P.C. were fully brought home to the accused/respondent. Considering the fact that incident had occurred almost a decade back and reversal of acquittal would itself be a punishment, this Court holds the view that it will not be appropriate to sentence the accused to any substantive imprisonment. The ends of justice would be met if the accused is visited with fine. AIR 1964 SC 986 followed. 1966 MPLJ SN 172 explained. Appeal allowed.