Horwill, J.

1. The petitioner was convicted by the Joint Magistrate of Rajahmundry of an offence punishable under Rule 19(1)(a) and (5) of the Defence of India Rules of sending by post to a destination outside British India (to wit the United States of America instructions for utilising any means of secretly conveying information (namely a Code).

2. Two points are raised in this petition. The first is that as the letter was intercepted by the Censor at Bombay (or Madras) the letter was not sent. The second contention is that this Code is not a secret one.

3. I think it correct to say that an article is sent if it is started on its way to its destination. For instance, if A gives a book to a messenger with instructions to give it to B I think it will be correct to say that A sent the book to B even though that messenger was waylaid and the book taken from him. One can say that the book was sent, but that it did not arrive at its destination. Any other interpretation would make rule 19 almost nugatory; for there would ordinarily be no detection when the missive reached its destination.

4. The Code used by the, petitioner is called Monte Amiatas Telegraphic Code. It is issued by a co