JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This revision application has been registered u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of the Court. The Petitioner is in custody in Bhubaneswar sub-jail undergoing trial for an offence u/s 500, Indian Penal Code. The offence is bailable but the Petitioner has chosen not to go on hail. Sometime back he sent a petition from the jail making various allegations against the Court and the complainant. He was on one occasion brought before the Court under my directions and the records of the proceeding were also brought. Thereafter on 22-12-1971 this revision Petitioner was registered. Mr. S.C. Mohapatra appears amicus curiae for the Petitioner. Mr. Kanungo represents the complainant opposite party. 3. The opposite party is a member of the Indian Administrative Service and at present happens to be the District Magistrate and the Collector of Kalahandi. Previously she was at Bhubaneswar as Deputy Secretary, Community Development and Panchyat Raj Department of the State Government. She filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the S.D.M. (Judicial) Bhubaneswar on 1-4-1970. Some portions of the petition of complaint may be extracted:- 7. (f) That the accused is an unemployed youngman and has, as it appears, no high qualification barring a short span alii an Assistant in the Secretariat which job he lost soon after his appointment, he has absolutely no means of subsistence. His antecedents are very mischievous by nature and has taken up commission of various crimes as his sole occupation to make a living. (g) That since August 1967 he was trying to intrude himself upon the privacy of the complainant and haunting the premises of her official residence at Bhubaneswar and speeding false and scandalous rumors about her. Taking advantage of the absence of any male members in the residence of the complainant (she being a lady) the accused committed trespass into her official residence in August and November 1967 and in November 1967 he was detected in the act of committing the said offence and F.I.R. was lodged in Capital Police Station. The complainant was transferred subsequently to Ganjam as Additional District Magistrate and was stationed at Chatrapur. The accused who is it resident of that district committed again trespass into her residence there, was prosecuted and was convicted after the trial and was sentenced to imprisonment. The complainant was transferred subsequently to Ganjam as Additional District Magistrate and was stationed at Chatrapur. The accused who is it resident of that district committed again trespass into her residence there, was prosecuted and was convicted after the trial and was sentenced to imprisonment. He went in appeal against the order of his conviction and unfortunately the then Additional District and Sessions Judges Ganjam allowed his appeal. The prosecution has thus challenged the order of acquittal in the Honourable High Court, Orissa and the appeal against acquittal has been admitted. These were stated by way of history and with reference to the main allegation for .the case it was stated, (j) That he has sent letters (copies enclosed) in his own hand addressed to the complainant, her mother and her husband and sent them to the home address of her husband. The contents of those letters were read by the nephew of Mr. Narayan swamy (her husband) who was shocked and surprised by these false allegations. He has sent those letters to the complainant for launching criminal prosecution. In the aforesaid petition of complaint against column 3 "date of occurrence" it has been stated, "From August 1967 at Capital P.S. to 31st January 1970". When the complainant was examined u/s 200, Code of Criminal Procedure she stated, I complain against Tribikrama Misra, who belongs to Ganjam. Since 1967 uptodate, he is trying to blackmail me both by words as well as by letters. He has used many defamatory statements in his letters. My prestige has been lowered in the society. The words he used and the words he wrote impute my chastity...On 31-1-1970 accused also trespassed in my official residence at Bhubaneswar and tried to intimidate me and had refused to go till he was taken into custody. After some evidence was led charge was framed on 19-5-1970 to the following effect: That you on or about 31st day of January 1970 at the Capital defamed Mrs. Chandranai Narayan Swami by publishing to Mr. V. Narayan Swami certain imputation concerning Mrs. Chandramani Narayan Swami, to wit, describing her as your wife by means of letters in writing intending that such imputation would harm the reputation of said Mrs. Chandramani Narayan Swami and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 500, Indian Penal Code. Sometime back a revision was carried before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) (Or. Rev. Chandramani Narayan Swami, to wit, describing her as your wife by means of letters in writing intending that such imputation would harm the reputation of said Mrs. Chandramani Narayan Swami and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 500, Indian Penal Code. Sometime back a revision was carried before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) (Or. Rev. No. 9 of 1970) questioning the charge. By order dated 29-7-1971 the revision application was dismissed and the charge was left as aforesaid. The complainant did not challenge the aforesaid order of the revisional Court. 4. The petition of complaint, the initial statement u/s 200, Code of Criminal Procedure and the further deposition given in Court as also the charge framed in the case clearly go to show that the sole basis of the present prosecution is the defamatory material contained in the letters written by the accused. Admittedly these letters were posted at Bhubaneswar and were Bent either to Poona or Quilon. Poona is the place were the complainant's husband serves. Admittedly the complainant's family came from Alleppey in the Kerala State. Some of her relations at Quilon are said to have received the letters in question. 5. The main point of dispute in this revision petition has been that the Court at Bhubaneswar has no jurisdiction to try the case. Section 177, Code of Criminal Procedure provides, Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. Various exceptions are indicated in the several other sections appearing in Chapter XV of the Code. The essence of the offence of defamation is publication and in the present case such publication was either at Poona or at Quilon where the letters were received and read. The original letters are already before the Court and they must have been sent under covers, because they are not post cards. Mr. Mohapatra relying upon the decisions in Khundanmal v. Emperor AIR 1943 Sind 196 Emperor v. Tribhovan Das ILR 33 Bom. 77, Ganga Prasad Jaiswal Vs. Chhotelal Jain and U.M. Aravamutha Iyengar Vs. Rajarathna Mudaliar contended that the offence of defamation cannot be committed at the place where the letters are posted. On the other hand, reliance is placed by Mr. Kanungo on the decisions in M.R. Krishnamurthy Aiyar Vs. C.V. Parasurama Aiyar Mrs. S.K. Burke Vs. 77, Ganga Prasad Jaiswal Vs. Chhotelal Jain and U.M. Aravamutha Iyengar Vs. Rajarathna Mudaliar contended that the offence of defamation cannot be committed at the place where the letters are posted. On the other hand, reliance is placed by Mr. Kanungo on the decisions in M.R. Krishnamurthy Aiyar Vs. C.V. Parasurama Aiyar Mrs. S.K. Burke Vs. T.C.W. Skipp In Re: Appavoo Pillai Pisupati Purnaiah Sidhanthi Vs. Pisupati Satyanarayana Sidhanthi and Shri Narain Singh Vs. State of Delhi and Another. It is true judicial opinion is divided, but the reasoning given in U.M. Aravamutha Iyengar Vs. Rajarathna Mudaliar, (already referred to) where the earlier decisions of their own Court have not been approved seems to be very reasonable. Somasundaram, J. in that case has said, The gist of the offence being publication of the defamatory matter, if the letter does not reach the other side, it cannot be said that defamation has been completed merely because the letter was posted at a particular place. There must, therefore, be evidence of the publication to constitute defamation and till the letter is published it cannot be said that defamation has been committed. In that view of the matter mere posting of the allegedly defamatory letters at Bhubaneswar did not constitute any part of the offence punishable u/s 500, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the Court at Bhubaneswar would not have jurisdiction to try the offence in question. 6. That apart, the manner in which the allegations have been made in the petition of complaint would go to show that the complainant did not have anything definite in view. The period during which the offence is said to have been committed is said to be "August 1967 to January 1970." Though evidence has been led in support of the allegations in the petition of complaint there has not yet been any satisfactory explanation as to why the offence was said to have spread over for such a long period. 7. I would accordingly hold that the learned S.D.M. at Bhubaneswar had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. There is no justification for such a proceeding to continue any longer. I would allow the revision and quash the proceedings before the trying Magistrate.