Bapna, J.—This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur, for setting aside a conviction under sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The fact are brief and are not disputed The complainant Sardar Khazan Singh sent a notice to the accused Surajmal demanding Rs. 80/8/- alleged to be due from the latter on 23rd January, 1950. The accused sent a reply on the 3rd February, 1950. denying his liability, and inter alia mentioned the following :— "Mujhe yah dekh kar ashchraya huva ke aap farji hisab rakhte hain aur jhunte dave bhi karte hain." Khazan Singh filed a complaint under sec. 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code on the 27th of February, 1950, in the Court of First class Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, on the allegations that the reply given by the accused amounted to a publication of defamatory statement against the complainant, which had affected his reputation. He alleged that when he went to the accused and remonstrated with him, he abused him, and wanted to quarrel with him. 3. The accused admitted having sent a reply, but said that he had only repudiated the claim, and had no intention of defaming the complainant. It was further said that the notice must have been read by the complainant himself, and there was no publication. 4. The trial court, after evidence, convicted the accused, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 21/-. On revision the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of opinion that there was no publication of the statement in this case, and at any rate the statement was covered by Exception (9), to sec. 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The reply sent by the accused was on a post card. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has tried to distinguish the observations in The Queen vs. Sri Vidhya Shankara Narashimha Bharathi Guru-swamula(l) by saying that in that case the finding was that the communication written on the post card by the accused might have reached others, and, therefore, publication was held to be proved. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has tried to distinguish the observations in The Queen vs. Sri Vidhya Shankara Narashimha Bharathi Guru-swamula(l) by saying that in that case the finding was that the communication written on the post card by the accused might have reached others, and, therefore, publication was held to be proved. The distinction made does not appear to be correct What was held in that case was that "Communicating a libellous statement by a post-card, Which may be read even by those who are not respondents disciples and even of his caste (the communication to these was held to be privileged) is illegal, and a wanton excess of privilege which appears to me to vitiate altogether. Exhibit A (the post card) was intended for the information of the complainant alone, and the privilege which the respondent had did not extend to its publication to the whole world". The communication of the libellous statement by a post card was held in that case to be sufficient publication to attract the provisions of the Penal Code. In the recent case Huth vs. Huth(2), the law regarding communication of a defamatory statement by post card has been fully explained. Lord Reading C. J. observed at page 39— "It has been laid down — I think rightly—that the Court will take judicial notice of the nature of the document, i.e., that it is a post card, and will presume, in that others besides the person to whom it is addressed will read and have in fact read what is written thereon. That is the presumption of fact which arises as a matter of law. If, even in such a case as that, the defendant could establish that the post-card never was read by a single person—although it is very difficult to conceive that the proof could be given—he would, notwithstanding the presumption, succeed in the action, because he would have proved that there was no publication. The fact that it is practically impossible to prove that any third person read it is the reason why the law taken judicial notice of the nature of document, and says that the mere fact that the words are written on postcard which is posted must be taken as some evidence that a third person will read it, or has read it. That is clear law and is quite beyond dispute." 5. That is clear law and is quite beyond dispute." 5. With great respect I rely on this authority for the proposition that defamatory communications on post card must be presumed to have been published, and is enough proof of publication unless the contrary is proved. 6. On the second question as to the statement being protected under Exception (9), it has to be borne in mind that the complainant subsequently instituted a civil suit for the amount claimed and that suit was dismissed on 28th November, 1950, on a finding that the suit had been falsely instituted against the defendant out of enmity. The words objected to may mean, as contended for the complainant, that the complainant maintains false account books and is in the habit of instituting false cases. But they may also amount only to saying that the accused was surprised to find that the accounts maintained by the complainant were fictitious and that he intended to lodge a false claim The language may not be quite happy, but the accused was at the time repudiating the claim made against him and could very well repudiate the accounts and the claims and give a serve condemnation of the same. The language can thus bear two interpretations, one of which does not amount to any imputation. In the context in which it appears it could, in my opinion, only have the second meaning above mentioned, and it does not amount any imputation intending to harm the reputation of the complainant. 7. The reference the learned Additional Sessions Judge is allowed, and the order of conviction of Surajmal petitioner dated 26.8.52 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, is set aside, the petitioner Surajmal is acquitted and the fine, if paid, will be refunded.