- (1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. This revision is directed against an order passed by a Magistrate dismissing a complaint under Section 203, Cr. P. C.
(2.) FOR the purposes of this revision it may be stated that revisionist Har Gyan Singh and opposite parties 1 to 19 were teachers in Maharaj Singh Inter College, Gangdaspur, district Saharanpur. It may be assumed for the sake of arguments that revisionist sent complaint to Secretary Shikshak Sangh, Saharanpur and District Inspector, Saharanpur. A communication was sent to the revisionist by a Registered Post. It was purported to have been signed by the 19 opposite parties. Further it purports to show that the nineteen opposite parties held meeting of Maharaj Ganj Inter College Shikshak Sangh and described the complaint of the revisionist as false. Then in this communication sent by Registered post to the revisionist some allegations were made against him. The members of Maharaj Ganj Inter College Shikshak Sangh then appealed to the officers and to the members of the Maharaj Ganj Shikshak Sangh to boycott the revisionist and to compel him to give up his unbefitting habits so that the image of the education may improve. Revisionist filed criminal complaint under Section 500, I. P. C. against nineteen opposite parties. He alleged that the 'ninda Prastav' with false and fabricated allegations was sent to him by registered post. He himself is a member of the Shikshak Sangh and the communication sent to him damaged his character and reputation. The learned Magistrate observed that in statement under Section 200, Cr. P. C. revisionist did not depose or prove the signature of the opposite parties. He further pointed out that the communication was only a photostat copy. Then he came to the conclusion that there was no publication o2 communication to any other person. Hence no offence of defamation was made out. Hence he dismissed the complaint.
(3.) IN revision this Court cannot ignore the observations of the learned Magistrate that the revisionist did not prove the signatures of the opposite parties. Secondly it is important to note that definition of 'defamation' is contained in Section 499. It lays down that "whosoever, 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 reputa tion of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. " Explanation 4 of this section lays down that "no imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. " IN the definition words makes or publishes any imputation concerning, "any person" are important. Then comes the tenth explanation which lays down that "it is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good. " In the instant case there is no evidence that the imputation was sent to any person other than the revisionist himself. When that was the position there was no publication at all nor inference should be drawn that there was any intention to harm the reputation of the revisionist. When the communication was sent to the revisionist himself under Registered Post intention becomes clear that it was to convey a caution, in good faith as chastisement for the good of the revisionist. A caution or chastisement conveyed to the person concerned gives rise to presumption of good faith. I am afraid that from no point of view offence of defamation was made out against the nineteen opposite parties. Complaint was rightly dismissed under Section 203. Revision is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;