JUDGMENT 1. - A complaint for the offence under Section 500 Indian Penal Code was presented by the non-petitioner No. 2 in the court of Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Jhunjhunu in which the petitioner was named as accused. Statement of the complainant under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded and thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 9-5-88. This order has been challenged by the accused petitioner on the ground that the court at Jhunjhunu has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. 2. The facts may be briefly looked into the petitioner as well as the non-petitioner No. 2 are both the Government servants and a dispute about seniority is pending between them. The petitioner claims to be senior to the respondent No. 2 but in the seniority list the respondent No. 2 has been shown as senior. The petitioner while working as a Office Superintendent in the office of the Collector, Sawai Madhopur wrote a letter by way of representation to the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer, who is the authority which has administrative control over the petitioner as well as the non-petitioner No. 2. In this letter dated 26-12-86, a few sentences were as under: " Jh xaxk/kj 'kekZ eq>ls 7 lky twfu;j gS fdUrq >wBh lPph fjiksZV izLrqr dj dk;Zky; v/kh{kd ds vkns'k ysuk pkgrs gS tcfd iwoZ dk lHkh fjdkM+Z cksM+Z es miyC/k gSaA Jh xaxk/kj 'kekZ us Loa; us gh mudh fjiksZV ds vk/kkj ij gh eUuq dqekj tks ;gka ij ,0Mh0,e0 Fks rFkk mudk LFkkukUrj.k t;iqj izkf/kdj.k esa gks tkus ij mlls ofj"Brk cnyokdj gLrk{kj djk yk;k tcfd og dysDVj Hkh ugh FkkA " 3. On 6th Feb., 1988, the respondent went to his office in Collectorate Jhunjhunu after availing of some leave and there he found that the petitioner had submitted representation consisting defamatory allegation and he found that his colleagues had a very bad opinion about him and that he was not an honest man as he was looked upon by suspicion took recourse to file the complaint for the offence of defamation. 4. On basis of these allegations it is to be seen whether the court at Jhunjhunu has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. 5. 4. On basis of these allegations it is to be seen whether the court at Jhunjhunu has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the letter dated 26th December, 1986 was written and posted at Sawai Madhopur and the destination was at Ajmer and an offence said to be committed by witting this letter can be tried either at Sawai Madhopur or at Ajmer. For this purpose, my attention has been drawn to Section 179 Gr. PC which has laid down that when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court with in whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. To support his contention; reliance has been placed on Rekhadevi v. Dattatraya and another 1986 Cr. LJ 1997 . In this case reliance was placed on a decision of this court reported in 1979, RCC 63. It has been held that the offence of defamation is completed while the posting of the latter and gives jurisdiction to the court where the letter is posted and it also gives jurisdiction to the court where the consequences ensued which consisted in gaining publicity at the opening of the letter. Thus, the jurisdiction is of the court where the letter is posted and also where the letter is received. 6. The learned Counsel for the non-Petitioner No. 2 has contended that the people of Jhunjhunu told him about the letter and it was amongst those people that he came to know that be was not held in good opinion therefore, the court at Jhunjhunu should also be said to be the place where consequences of the letter can be said to have ensued. 7. I have considered the contentions urged on behalf of both the sides. There is no material on record to show that the letter addressed to the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Rajasthan at Ajmer was dispatched to Jhunjhunu for any purpose what-so-ever No statement under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code has been recorded in order to show as to how the contents of the letter came to be published or known at Jhunjhunu. There is no material on record to show that the letter addressed to the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Rajasthan at Ajmer was dispatched to Jhunjhunu for any purpose what-so-ever No statement under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code has been recorded in order to show as to how the contents of the letter came to be published or known at Jhunjhunu. The act in this case was done at Sawai Madhopur and the letter when opened at Ajmer had its consequences and it can be said that the consequences of a defamatory letter written at one place and posted at an another place may have consequences at a third place if a copy of the letter is endorsed to some one at that place, or it has been sent for circulation or for comments or such other thing when the contents of the letter have not been sent to Jhunjhunu then merely because some people came to know about it at Jhunjhunu would not confer any jurisdiction to the court at Jhunjhunu. In the present case, cognizance by the Magistrate at Jhunjhunu has been taken without jurisdiction and deserves to ue quashed. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also raised the ground that his name falls under exception 8 of Section 499 Criminal Procedure Code How ever, it can be said that this is not the stage where it can be examined whether the allegations made by the petitioner fall within the exception 8 or not. This can be inquired into only when the petitioner is made to face the trial and complainant first establishes that the publication made by the accused has caused harm to his reputation. 9. As the Magistrate at Jhunjhunu has taken cognizance without, jurisdiction the order dated 9th May, 1988 is quashed.Petition allowed. *******