Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.170 of 1993 before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. That is a complaint filed by 2nd respondent alleging commission of offence by petitioner under S.499 IPC punishable under S.500. Petitioner is alleged to have sent a letter to 2nd respondent containing defamatory remarks. Since 2nd respondent has poor eye sight, the letter was taken to another person who published the contents to several persons whereby the reputation of 2nd respondent is alleged to have been lowered. Petitioner seeks to quash that complaint on various grounds.

2. Heard counsel for petitioner and 2nd respondent.

3. The defamatory remarks are alleged to have been made in a letter sent to 2nd respondent by petitioner from Ernakulam. Though the letter purports to be one sent by

petitioner, it does not contain any signature. The description of petitioner finds a place therein. But it is not clear from which place the letter was sent. The cover in which the letter is alleged to have been sent was not produced. The letter does not contain the seal of the post office. What has been produced along with the complaint is only an unsigned letter alleged to have been sent by petitioner to 2nd respondent. There is no indication in the letter to show that it was sent by petitioner herself or that it was sent to 2nd respondent. Though such an inference can be drawn from a reading of the letter, that by itself is not sufficient to connect petitioner with the letter produced along with the complaint.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that the averments in the complaint do not disclose an offence of defamation since there has not been publication of the alleged defamatory remarks which is one of the ingredients required under S.499 IPC. The letter is alleged to have been received by 2nd respondent through post. To get over this difficulty reliance is placed on the averment in the complaint that 2nd respondent being a person of poor eye sight had taken the letter to one Abdulla who had read out the letter to him and published the contents to the persons of that locality. The question ari ses whether this averment can be relied on to prove publication. According to counsel for petitioner it cannot whereas counsel for 2nd respondent asserted that there had been publication by the said Abdulla reading the cpntente and making persons of that locality know about the same.

5. Counsel has drawn attention to the decision in Kundanmal v. Emperor (AIR (30) 1943 Sine! 196). That was a case where a letter was sent in a language which was not known to the addressee. He took the letter to another person. The letter contained defamatory imputations.Though the letter was sent direct to the person defamed, the Sind High Court held that the writer knew that the person defamed could not read and that it would be got read by a third person. It was for that reason that it was held that there is evidence of publication to a third person satisfying the requirement of S.499 IPC.

6. The above contention is met by counsel for petitioner by relying on the decision of this court in Parameswara v. Krishna Pilled (AIR 1966 Ker. 264). In that case, a lawyer is alleged to have made defamatory remarks in a counter-statement filed by him on behalf of a party. This Court held that there was no evidence that the counter statements were publicly read out in the hearing of others. For that reason and for the other reasons mentionedin that order, it was held that no prima facie case of defamation was made out. Counsel has also drawn attention to the decision in Powell v. Gelston (1916) 2 K.B. 615. It was held that to constitute publication in law, there must be a publication to the person intended, unless, indeed, the defendant by his own carelessness allows the letter to get into the hands of another person or unless he knows or has reasons to expect that the letter may be opened by some one other than the addressee. There was no intention t