P.C. Banerjee, J.
1. Rahim Bakhsh and Hibib Bakhsh have been convicted under Section 504, Indian Penal Code. The former was sentenced to one week's simple imprisonment and the latter to a fine of Rs. 50. They applied in revision to the learned Sessions Judge. He has referred the owe to this Court with the recommendation that the conviction of Habib Bakhsh should be set aside and the sentence on Rahim Bakhsh be reduced to a fine of Rs. 300. Rahim Bakhsh has also filed an application for revision in this Court and it in contended on his behalf that the conviction, under Section 504, is not justified by law. It appears that Rahim Bakhsh carries on a furniture shop in Jhansi Cantonments. Captain Urquhart, the husband of the complainant, went to him for the hire of the furniture, and some articles were marked on a list which was apparently shown to the accused, Rahim Bakhsh. The following morning a cart was sent to Rahim Bakhsh for the furniture but he sent it back with the intimation, if the statement of Mahboob be true,' that he would supply the articles after an hour. When the cart went again to Rahim Bakhsh, he asked the messenger to request his mistress to come and select the furniture. Thereupon Mrs. Urquhart accompanied by Mrs. Thomson went to the shop of Rahim Bakhsh. He was at the time seated in a chair with his feet up and did not stand up when the ladies arrived. Mrs. Urquhart in her depsition says that she asked Rahim Bakhsh why he did not send her the furniture. Rahim Bakhsh remained seated in his chair and said, ' How can I give you what I have not go?' He was asked to stand up but he did not move and waved the list of the furniture and paid. ' Way are you offendeo? I shall not give you any furniture.' She says that she got very angry and at the persuasion of Mrs. Thomson left the shop. The faces as proved by the evidence and as found by the Court of first instance are that the man remained seated in his chair when the ladies spoke to him; that he did not get up when he was asked to do so, and that he finally refused to give her any furniture.
2. Probably his tone was unsatisfactory and it may be that he was regarded as behaving in a rude and insolent manner to Mrs. Urquhart. That could not be sufficient within the meaning of Section 504 to constitute intentional insult. Under that section it is necessary that the insult should have been intentionally caused and thereby provocation should be given with the intention or knowledge that such provocation was likely to cause the person provoked to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. It is clear in this case that the accused never intended (hat the provocation which he might have given to the complainant would lead the complainant to commit a breach of the peace or any other offence, and it cannot be said that he had the knowledge that a lady in the position of the complainant was likely to commit a breach of the peace or any other offence as a result of the provocation he might have caused. His conduct in not getting up from his chair was certainly most discourteous to the lady, but the discourtesy and bad manners did not amount to a criminal offence for which he could be criminally punished. As regards the second accrued all be did was to say to the complainant that he would not give her any forniture and that she might set it elsewhere. This certainly did not bring him within the purview of Section 504. In my opinion neither of the accused was guity of the offence punishable under the aforesaid section and neither of the a should have been convicted. 1 set aside the conviction and sentence in the case of both the accused. The fine imposed on the second accused, if paid, should be refunded.