Order.- The petitioner in this case has been convicted for an offence under section 2-A of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment by the trial Court which was reduced to 3 months by the appellate Court. The petitioner can be convicted under section 2-A only if he knowing or having reason to believe that an order for detention has been passed in respect of the person who is said to have been harboured by the petitioner, harboured him. The order of detention passed by the Government has not been filed in this case. Under section 64 of the Evidence Act, the order must be proved by filing an order itself. No secondary evidence of the order is permissible unless the conditions mentioned in section 65 are satisfied. It is not the case of the prosecution that their action falls within the scope of section 65, Evidence Act. The evidence of the newspaper in which it was stated that a person was wanted is not sufficient, especially when knowledge or reason to believe has to be proved by the prosecution. The case is covered by the Privy Council ruling in Easwaramurthy Goundan v. King-Emperor1. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the accused is acquitted. K.C. ----- Petition allowed.