O R A L O R D E R Alleging that publication of notice to him in a paper by the A, P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad (A.P.S.A.I.D.C), that O.S.No.l021 of 1999 filed by it on the. file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Ongole against him and others stands posted to 10.10.2001 for his appearance and that he should appear either in person or through his counsel, before the Court, at 10.30 AM on 10.10.2001 is defamatory, petitioner filed, a private complaint against respondents 2 to 4 under Section 500 IPC. The learned Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the petitioner and considering the submission;.’ made, dismissed tile complaint on tile ground that publication oi notice to tile petitioner, who is a defendant in the suit, under Rule 20 of Order V CPC is not and cannot be defaination. Revision preferred by the petitioner to the Sessions Court against the said order of dismissal also was dismissed by the order impugned in this petition. Hence, this petition. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondents being the General Manager, Manager (P & A) and. Regional Manager of A.P.S.A.LD.C in which the petitioner is employed, though aware of his address, willfully, with a view to defame the petitioner, got published the notice in papers only with a view to make public that a suit is filed against him in a civil Court arid so both the Courts below were ill error in holding that publication, of notice is not mid cannot be considered as defamatory. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 3. The notice published, which is said to be defamatory, reads that A.P.S.A.I.D.C. Limited represented by its Regional Manager, Nellore, filed a suit against A. Subbarao and others including the petitioner as 3rd defendant in that. suit and that that case stands posted to 10-10-2001 for the appearance of the petitioner and another and so they should appear before the Court on 10-10-2001 at. 10.30 AM either in person or through a counsel and submit their objections, if any, and if they fail to appear, further proceedings would be proceeded with ex parte. 4. suit and that that case stands posted to 10-10-2001 for the appearance of the petitioner and another and so they should appear before the Court on 10-10-2001 at. 10.30 AM either in person or through a counsel and submit their objections, if any, and if they fail to appear, further proceedings would be proceeded with ex parte. 4. Section 499 IPC defines ‘defamation’ as: “Whoever by words; either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or 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 exce.pted, to defame that person.” So, ‘imputation’, which harms the reputation of a person is the SINE QUA NON for the offence, of defamation. Impute’, according to the Chambers Dictionary means ‘to ascribe (usually something evil, dishonest, etc.); to charge, to attribute (grief, righteousness, etc) vicariously to’. The publication made in this case shows that the suit filed by A.P.S.A.I.D.C. Limited against, tile petitioner stands posted to 10-10-2001 for his appearance. Informing the petitioner that a suit filed against him is posted to a particular date for his appearance and that he may appear either in person or through an advocate and if he fails to appear the matter would be decided ex parte, does not amount to making any ‘imputation’ against die petitioner by respondents 2 to 4, More so because the notice published does not even state, the relief claimed in the suit. 5. Significantly it is not even the case of the petitioner that the said suit. O.S. No. 1021 of 1999 was dismissed or decreed or is pending. If the suit is decreed it means that the claim made in the suit by A.P.S.A.I.D.C, was accepted by the Court, as true. Then how can the petitioner be heard to say that substituted service of notice in which he suffered a decree is defamatory? Moreover, when the suit is filed by A.P.S.A.I.D.C. how respondents 2 to 4 can be said to have committed the offence also is not explained by the petitioner. 6. In the. above circumstances, the Court, below dismissing the complaint, cannot be said to be erroneous and, so, I find no merits in this petition. 7. Hence, the petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. --X--