Judgment- The revision petitioner was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate, Mukundapuram, under section 51 of the Police Act (II of 1952) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. After unsuccessfully appealing against his conviction to the District Magistrate, Trichur, he has now approached this Court in revision. The charge against the petitioner was that on 13th October, 1960, at about 3 p.m. he “behaved in a violent and disorderly way” towards the witness No.2 Kunjunny on the verandah of the Court-house while being escorted out of the Court by two Police Constables. The words alleged to have been used by the accused are “You don’t know me. I will set you right. Be careful. You and your witnessing.” The witnesses, who swear to have been present when the accused said these words do not say that he did anything more than utter them. P.W.2 the person to whom the words were addressed does not say that he felt threatened, frightened or even annoyed in any way. The evidence does not even disclose that the accused talked in an unusually loud voice or that he used any violent gesticulation. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the mere use of words will not constitute an offence under section 51 of the Police Act. It was also argued by him that even if the accused is guilty of disorderly behaviour he should have been proceeded against not under the Police Act, but under the Travancore-Cochin Prisons Act as the accused was at the time of occurrence a prisoner of the local Sub-Jail. Section 51 of the Police Act reads thus: “Whoever, in any street or public place or in any Court....................is found drunk and incapable of taking care of himself or is guilty of any violent, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour shall be liable to a fine........................” The question therefore is whether the mere uttering of the words used by the accused will constitute violent or disorderly behaviour. The Oxford Dictionary defines the ward ‘behaviour’ as ‘treatment shown to or towards others’ and Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (3rd Edition, Volume I, page 334) gives the meaning as ‘manner of having, holding, or keeping one’s self, carriage of one’s self, with respect to propriety, morals and the requirements of law’. It seems to me that the expression behaviour connotes something more than the way a person talks. It seems to me that the expression behaviour connotes something more than the way a person talks. In other words, behaviour is not synonymous with talk. The type of language one uses forms only a part though a large part of one’s behaviour. No authority was brought to my notice, which would be of help in interpreting the Word. However, one can derive some assistance from the words as used in the Prisons Act which according to the accused should if at all have been proceeded against. Section 46 of the Prisons Act, which declares certain acts to be the “prison offences” enumerates them as (1)..........(3) the use of insulting or threatening language, and (4) immoral or indecent or disorderly behaviour, etc. If the use of insulting or threatening language would constitute disorderly behaviour there is no need to classify them separately. This seems to indicate that a distinction is recognised between the use of insulting or threatening language and indecent or disorderly behaviour. So I venture to hold that the use of the words que ted above even if they are threatening and uttered in an angry tone does not constitute riotous or disorderly behaviour within the meaning of section 51 of the Police Act. In view of the above finding the contention that the accused should have been proceeded against under the Prisons Act and not the Police Act need not be considered. Before concluding I wish to observe that to me it appears to be a case of“much ado about nothing”. This empty threat by an accused in the custody of the police is only a trifling matter which should not have been brought to Court. As suggested by the defence, perhaps things would not have assumed such proportions if the Head constable (P.W.4) the husband of the complainant in the case in which P.W. 2, gave evidence against the accused was not present in the Court-house. The revision petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside. The fine if realised will be refunded. M.C.M. ----- Petition allowed.