( 1 ) IN order to enable the court to decide whether particular words used by the accused were likely to give provocation to Murlidhar so as to cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence as contemplated by sec. 5q4 of the Indian Penal Code it was necessary for the prosecution to point out the actual words used by the accused. In the present case however as stated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge the prosecution did not disclose the actual words used by the accused. It appears that there was exchange of abuses between Murlidhar and the accused and there is no material on the record from which the court can decide that the abuses given by the accused were in fact filthy or indecent as alleged by the prosecution. It is true that in order to constitute intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace or with requisite knowledge as contemplated by sec. 504 of the Indian Penal Code it is not necessary that abuse should he filthy or indecent. But in the present case as pointed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge there is no satisfactory evidence on the record to show that the accused had abused Murlidhar with the intention of insulting him in order to give him provocation to break the public peace. Mere abuse in the absence of any intention to provoke any person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence or of knowledge that a breach of the peace was likely does not fall within sec. 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

.