JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, J. 1. The accused has been convicted under section 500, Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to two months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200. The alleged defamation is contained in a letter which appeared in a paper called Desks ewak which was published in Nagpur in the Central Provinces. Both the courts below held that the charge was proved against the accused. The latter now comes to this Court in revision and contends that the case was not proved and that there was no jurisdiction to hear the case in Cawnpore. Whether or not the accused is responsible for the letter in question, it seems to me that the court might well hold that it was defamatory. The object of it appears to be to advertise the Union Indian Sugar Works and their products at the expanse of the Cawnpore Sugar Works and their products by insinuating that the product of the Union Indian Sugar Works was pure particularly from a Hindu point of view, while the product of the Cawnpore Sugar Works was impure. The real question, however, is not whether the letter was defamatory but whether or not the charge was brought home to the accused. The letter purports to be a letter written by a person who had some recent dealings with the Union Indian Sugar Works and their agents and who had purchased sugar from them. It is proved that the accused had dealings of this nature at the very time. It is not an unnatural inference that the writer of the matter which appeared in the newspaper knew that the accused or some other person he been making purchases of sugar from the Union Indian Sugar Works about this period. It is also proved that the accused was interested in the Union Sugar Mill. It must be carefully borne in mind, however, that the present charge is not against Desk sewak newspaper or any one connected therewith. The charge is that Ramlal Balaram accused wrote the letter which appeared in the newspaper and was there by guilty of an offence punishable under section 500, Penal Code, 1860. 2. There is no proof of any kind that a letter was written by any one, far less it is proved that the accused wrote it. The charge is that Ramlal Balaram accused wrote the letter which appeared in the newspaper and was there by guilty of an offence punishable under section 500, Penal Code, 1860. 2. There is no proof of any kind that a letter was written by any one, far less it is proved that the accused wrote it. Both the learned Magistrate who tried the case and the Sessions Judge who heard the case on appeal seem to have thought that a copy of the newspaper containing the libel could be used as secondary evidence, because after search being made in the office and the premises of the newspaper no letter was found. In this they were clearly wrong. It is impossible to say that secondary evidence could be given of a document which was not even proved to have been written by the accused or even to have existed. In my opinion it is absolutely clear that whatever ground for suspicion there may have been that the accused wrote the letter, the proof of his having done, so falls altogether short. I allow the application, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquit the accused and direct that he be set at liberty and also order that the fine, if paid, be refunded.