Govinda Menon, J.- The revision petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Magistrate of Cannanore for an offence under section 51 of the Kerala Police Act (Act V of 1961) and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 days. His appeal before the District Magistrate of Tellicherry having proved unsuccessful he has come up in revision. The charge against him was that on 3rd August, 1962, at 6-30 a.m., he entered the Cannanore Railways Police Station and abused P.W. 1 the Sub-Inspector of Police in vulgar language and behaved indecently towards him. The concurrent finding of fact that the accused did enter the Police Station and abused the Sub-Inspector of Police in vulgar and filthy language cannot be canvassed here in revision. It is, however, contended that even on the facts found an offence under section 51 of the Kerala Police Act is not made out. The section deals with persons who are guilty of any violent, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour in any street or public place or in any Court, Police Station, public office, etc. If the prosecution case is true, as I hold it to be, it follows that the accused entered the Police Station and abused the officer-in-charge in a most filthy and indecent language and this would amount to behaving in an indecent manner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred me to the decision in Derassy v. State of Kerala1. That was a case where the accused who was being escorted out of the Court by two Police Constables told P.W. 2 a witness in the case as follows: “You don’t know me. I will set you right. Be careful you and your witnessing.” On the facts of that case Anna Chandy, J., held that the use of the words indicated above by itself would not amount to riotous or disorderly behaviour. There was no allegation that any filthy languages were used or that the accused behaved in an indecent manner. The above decision can, therefore, have no application to the facts of this case. In the case in In re Govindaswamy and others1, the accused were charged, under section 75 of the Madras City Police Act for having abused in filthy and indecent language certain loyal workers who refused to joint in the strike organised by the accused. The above decision can, therefore, have no application to the facts of this case. In the case in In re Govindaswamy and others1, the accused were charged, under section 75 of the Madras City Police Act for having abused in filthy and indecent language certain loyal workers who refused to joint in the strike organised by the accused. The wording of section 75 of the Madras City Police Act is almost similar to the wording in the Kerala Police Act. It Was held that persons abusing in filthy and indecent language those workers and behaving in a riotous, disorderly or indecent fashion in a public place can be convicted under section 75. Similarly in this case the accused got into the police station and used filthy and obscene language against the Sub-Inspector. I have no doubt that such a conduct would amount to indecent behaviour and even to disorderly behaviour. The conviction of the accused is, therefore, correct and is confirmed. Regarding the question of sentence I am tempted to agree with the learned Counsel that in the peculiar circumstances of this case sentence of imprisonment is not called for. In substitution of the sentence of imprisonment I sentence the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. With this modification the revision petition is dismissed. Time for payment of fine a fortnight from this date. M.C.M. ------ Sentence modified.