JUDGMENT This revision is directed against the concurrent finding of the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding the applicant guilty of offence punishable under Section 509 of the Penal Code and letting him off on admonition under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act. 2. Facts which give rise to this proceeding are as under : On 12/06/2009 lady Head Constable Varsha Kelkar was on her duty at Vasco Police Station. At about 5.30 p.m., the applicant came to her and asked her about his brother's verification report. Varsha Kelkar told him that the report was ready and placed before the PI for his signature. Thereafter, the applicant started abusing Varsha and uttered the words which are mentioned by Varsha in her complaint as well as in her deposition. He then threatened Varsha that he would bring her on road. This happened in the presence of her colleagues. On arrival of the PI, Varsha gave a report upon which an offence was registered and investigation commenced. In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer performed panchanama of spot, examined witnesses and sent the charge sheet to the Court of learned JMFC, Vasco for offence punishable under Section 354 and 509 of the Penal Code. 3. The learned Magistrate explained the particulars of the accusation to the applicant and since he pleaded not guilty, put him on trial. The prosecution examined in all 10 witness in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the applicant. After considering the prosecution evidence, in the light of the defence made by the applicant, the learned Magistrate acquitted the applicant of offence punishable under Section 354 of the Penal Code, but held him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Penal Code and released him on admonition. The applicant preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, who maintained the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate. Aggrieved thereby, applicant is before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and have gone through the evidence on record. PW1/Varsha Kelkar is the complainant whose evidence about the applicant's coming to her office making inquiries about his brother's verification and then abusing her is corroborated by PW2 lady constable Harsha Mapari and PW6 police constable Balgo Gawas, who were present in the office at the time of incident. PW1/Varsha Kelkar is the complainant whose evidence about the applicant's coming to her office making inquiries about his brother's verification and then abusing her is corroborated by PW2 lady constable Harsha Mapari and PW6 police constable Balgo Gawas, who were present in the office at the time of incident. One Shaikh Mohammad, who was examined as PW8 was also supposed to have been present at the time of the incident, but he turned hostile and did not support prosecution. The witnesses at the panchanama spot PW3/Mohammad Mandale and PW4/Basavraj Asmani do not support the prosecution. PW5/Kiran Podwal was the police inspector who stated about the duty of the applicant on the relevant date. This shows that the applicant could have been in the office of Varsha Kelkar at the relevant time. PW7/ASI Vassudev Naik proved the station diary's extract about duty of the applicant. It was sought to be brought out from the cross-examination by this witness that the applicant was in the office till 6.15 p.m. because the witness stated in cross that "we were in the office up to 6.15 p.m." PW9/PI Nolasco Rapose received the complaint of Varsha Kelkar and PW10/PSI Filomeno Costa conducted investigation. 5. There is absolutely nothing in the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 6 to show that they had any enmity with the applicant to level any false charges against him. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve their word on oath that the applicant came to the office of PW1/Varsha Kelkar and abused her. Hostility of an independent eye witness would not result in disbelief in the evidence of these witnesses. Therefore, the learned trial Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge were justified in holding that the incident as deposed to by PWs 1, 2 and 6 was fully proved. 6. Even so, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the offence punishable under Section 509 of the Penal Code is not proved since the evidence tendered does not show that the applicant could have acted in a manner intending to insult modesty of a woman. He submitted that the evidence of the witness would show that the applicant had become "vibrant" (possibly violent) and then the applicant allegedly used the abusive words after he lost control of himself. He submitted that the evidence of the witness would show that the applicant had become "vibrant" (possibly violent) and then the applicant allegedly used the abusive words after he lost control of himself. There was no reason for the applicant to lose control of himself since PW1/Varsha Kelkar had not provided any provocation to the applicant. On the other hand, she had told him that she had prepared the report in respect of applicant's brother and kept it for signature of PI. Therefore, if the applicant lost control he must blame himself. 7. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that even so, the abusive words attributed to the applicant cannot be shown to have been uttered with the intention to insult the modesty of PW1/Varsha Kelkar and for this purpose he relied on a judgment reported at V BLR 502 in the case of Emperor V/s. Phiaz Mahamad. It may be useful to reproduce the entire judgment which is one short paragraph for ready reference. "The Sessions Judge has upheld the conviction under s.509 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the accused entered in the middle of the night the room where Gangubai was sleeping, called her by name and asked her to get up. But he has not considered the bearing which certain facts he has found proved have on the question of intention which is a necessary ingredient of the offence under s.509. These facts are that there was previous acquaintance between the accused and Gangubai, that she used to speak to strangers and give pan supari to visitors. They negative intention on the part of the accused either to insult her modesty or intrude upon her privacy. We must reverse the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded." 8. It would be clear that the judgment has no bearing on the facts of this case. In the judgment on which the learned Counsel has placed reliance, there was no explicit use of any words which could be held to outrage the modesty of a woman. The words attributed to the accused in that case had the propensity to be interpreted as a slur on the victim's character and the Court then referred to the past conduct of the victim and decided the case. Such are not the facts in the case at hand. The words attributed to the accused in that case had the propensity to be interpreted as a slur on the victim's character and the Court then referred to the past conduct of the victim and decided the case. Such are not the facts in the case at hand. Here words used such as "randi, chedeydi, zavane" are themselves abusive, filthy and without doubt resulting in insulting the modesty of a women. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that in the circumstances even if the applicant is held to have been unjustifiably lost his control and uttered those words, some other offence may be made, but not offence under Section 509 of the Penal Code, because he did not utter those words with the intention to insult modesty of a woman. This contention cannot be accepted because intention is a matter of inference. Intention has to be gathered from the act complained of since there is no mechanism as yet to probe into the mind of the offender to find out as to what intention he was harbouring at the relevant time. Here, the applicant had used abusive words to a woman. The only intention that could be attributed to him is that he intended to insult the modesty of the victim in uttering those words. 9. The applicant is not a layman. He is a police constable who is supposed to have been acquainted with various provisions of law and, therefore, should know as to how the words uttered could be interpreted. The applicant-policeman had no compunction in going to the office of a female colleague and hurling those abuses after losing tamper. In these circumstances, it has to be observed that in fact both, the learned trial Judge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have erred on the side of leniency in releasing the applicant on admonition having due regard to his career in police department, though it is doubtful whether a policeman who could behave in this fashion with a lady colleague could be expected to deal with citizens courteously. All the same, since the learned Judges have shown leniency to the applicant the applicant should have been happy with that. 10. There is no merit in the revision application. It is dismissed. Revision dismissed.