Judgment : This criminal revision is directed by the complainant in a private complaint case against an order passed by Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore dismissing a complaint under Sec.203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The revision petitioner- complainant (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed a complaint against four accused (respondents hereinafter referred to as the accused). The first accused is the Managing Partner, second accused is the Business Manager, third accused is an employee and fourth accused is a partner of M/s.S.M.S.Gardens. 3. The case of the complainant is that in pursuance of a publication by the said firm, to purchase a flat in their construction he paid the initial amount and registered his name and he had been paying the sale price in instalments. As per the rules and conditions of the building scheme of the firm, the firm should have given possession of the flat after he has paid certain instalments but even though such instalments had been paid the firm has not delivered possession of the flat to him but insisted that the entire balance amount shall be paid in one instalment and only on such payment possession will be delivered. The complainant personally went to the firm and brought to their notice the rules and regulations, and he sent a letter in this regard, but in their reply dated 9. 1991 they have written as follows: "The records would show that you have not been prompt in payment... We are convinced that you are not trust-worthy and hence are not interested in prolonging the contract for the next period of 5 years and hence are inclined to cancel your allotment." The further case of the complainant is that on reading this letter which contained defamatory statement against him he became unconscious for a few moments and at that time there were two persons there who helped him to regain his consciousness, and they out of curiosity read that letter and on account of that imputation in their estimate his reputation lowered. The accused have therefore defamed him and therefore they are liable to be punished under Sec.500 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The accused have therefore defamed him and therefore they are liable to be punished under Sec.500 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the complaint and the evidence adduced by the complainant came to the conclusion that there is no prima facie material to show that the accused have defamed the complainant and therefore dismissed the complaint under Sec.203, Crl.P.C. It is against this order the criminal revision case has been filed. 5. I find there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate. Even if the said contents of the letter (Ex.P-26) can be said to be defamatory, the facts stated in the complaint will not satisfy the ingredients of an offence of defamation defined in Sec. 499, I.P.C. The material portion of this section reads as follows: "499. Defamation: Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or. knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person." [Italics mine] So unless a person makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, there is no offence of defamation. 6. Now, in the present case, according to the complainant, the defamatory words are in a letter sent by the accused to him, and admittedly that letter came in a postal cover. Clearly therefore that letter was intended for the complainant to read and not any other person. Certainly the accused have not made any publication of that letter. It can only be said that they made the imputation in the letter but it cannot be said that they intended that anybody else to read it. This being the position the accused cannot at all be said to have intended to harm, or knew, or had reason to believe that the imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant. 7. As stated by the trial court, the case of the complainant that on receipt of the letter he became unconscious and at that moment two other persons read that letter sounds very incredible. 7. As stated by the trial court, the case of the complainant that on receipt of the letter he became unconscious and at that moment two other persons read that letter sounds very incredible. Be that as it may, even if such a thing had happened, still it cannot be said that the accused have committed an offence of defamation. If two other persons had read that letter as stated by the complainant it is surely an accident, and certainly from this it cannot be said that the accused intended to harm or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation would harm the reputation of the complainant. 8. Rightly therefore the court below has dismissed the complaint under Sec.203, Crl.P.C. Thus I find no merit in the criminal revision case. Accordingly it is dismissed.