JUDGMENT Bajpai, J. - This is an application in revision against an acquittal and by this application two reliefs are sought: (1) that the acquittal be set aside and a re-trial of the case be ordered and (2) that certain passages be expunged from the judgment of the Court below. The complainant Gandharp Singh charged the accused of having used certain defamatory statements regarding himself and his father and in support of his complaint he produced a number of witnesses. The learned Magistrate has examined the statements of the prosecution witnesses and has come to the conclusion that no reliance can be placed on such testimony inasmuch as the witnesses are either confidants or close friends of the complainant. I can see nothing improper in the way in which the learned Magistrate has approached the consideration of the prosecution evidence. He is of the opinion that it may well be that the accused have defamed the complainant and the Learned Counsel for the complainant has naturally made much of certain stray passages in the judgment of the Court below which lent colour to the view that the learned Magistrate was not inclined to reject the case as absolutely false. The fact, however, remains that the learned Magistrate was similarly of the opinion that the prosecution witnesses are not witnesses of truth and though the charge as a whole might be true yet the way in which it was attempted to be supported was undoubtedly objectionable. This is a legitimate method of deciding a. case and in revision it is not possible for me to interfere with the order of the acquittal. 2. In this connection it was also argued that the complainant averred that he was defamed by the accused by means of a number of statements, more than three, and the trial was defective in this respect and it should, therefore, be quashed. This comes with a very bad grace from the complainant and I am not prepared to attach any importance to this plea. 3. On the question of expunging certain remarks which appear at the end of the judgment of the learned Magistrate I think there is some force in the prayer. This comes with a very bad grace from the complainant and I am not prepared to attach any importance to this plea. 3. On the question of expunging certain remarks which appear at the end of the judgment of the learned Magistrate I think there is some force in the prayer. The complainant was undoubtedly before the Court but his father was not, and no reference ought to have been made to the character of the father, much less to say that he was an ex-convict, though it is true that he was convicted of an offence u/s 325, Indian Pinal Code The complainant also was implicated in the same case but proceedings were taken against him u/s 562, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate then says that he looked into certain police papers. This action was wholly unwarranted and any inference that he had drawn from an inspection of the police papers should not have been placed on the judgment. If any use was to be made of them, they should have been brought on the record and an opportunity given to the party against whom they were to be used of meeting them. Under the circumstances I direct that in the last paragraph of the Magistrate's judgment the words beginning from "The complainant and his father'' upto "certain crimes" be deleted. Otherwise the application is rejected.