SUNIL HALI, J. - (1.)A criminal complaint under sections 500,501 and 503 RPC has been filed against seven accused persons by respondent No. 1 before the trial court. It is alleged in the complaint that accused 2 and 7 published news item in Early Times in its issued dated 6.7.2005 levelling allegation that Mr. Raj Daluja not only cheated the court but has also deceived the police department. According to the complainant, the following contents in the items are defamatory and derogatory remarks which are quoted hereinbelow:
Chairman JK Public School to face inquiry' ' Jammu: Special Municipal Court Jammu has ordered inquiry against Raj Daluja son of Daswandi Ram in impersonate case. Mr. Raj Daluja is editor -in -chief of States Times newspaper and Chairman of JK Public School.' ' Court observed that Raj Daluja has not only cheated the judiciary but also ditched the Police Department.' ' The court observed that this is really a serious matter which requires to be investigated and all those guilty for impersonation or abetment thereof need to be proceeded. That it is not in dispute that the Municipal Magistrate had passed the following orders: 1. Following circumstances have necessitated the issuance of this order.

(2.)A charge sheet for the commission of offence under Section 353 RPC against above named accused came to be presented before this Court on 31.3.2001 in pursuance of FIR No. 182/03 of Police Station Pacca Danga, Jammu. The next date of hearing in the case has been fixed for 08.02.2005. As per the interim order of this Court, dated 31.12.2004 accused was present in the court and he furnished the surety and personal bonds in the amount of Rs. 5,000/ -each which was accepted and attested. The challan was first produced by Incharge Police Post Sarwal and she was asked to present the same before SPO of this Court for presentation. Subsequently the challan was presented by Mr. Kh. Javed Ahmed SPO in presence of Incharge Police Post Sarwal. This Court was informed by some confidential sources that the person who was produced in the court was not the accused named in the challan and the person who appeared impersonated as accused. To verify this fact Incharge Police Post Rehari was summoned through SPO of this Court today who admitted that the person produced in the court was not the accused named in the charge sheet. However, the lady officer submitted that she was oblivious of the identity of the actual accused.'
The grievance of the complainant is that trial court had not made any observation with respect to the fact that Raj Daluja had cheated the Judiciary and also police department. This comments made in the newspaper was not what was observed by the court. The trial court proceeded after examining the complaint, issued process under sections 500,501 and 503 RPC. This order was again challenged in revision petition before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu by the petitioners. The 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu has dismissed the revision petition on the ground that it is an interlocutory order and warrants no interference from this Court. Both these orders are subject matter of challenge in the petition under Section 561 -A of Cr.P.C. before this Court. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.)IT is not in dispute that news item is based upon an order passed by Municipal Magistrate, Jammu on 6.1.2005. The Magistrate has recorded in his order that in case entitled State v. Raj Kumar Daluja some other persons have impersonated for Mr. Raj Kumar Daluja. In this respect an enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the Magistrate. The comments made in the news item that Raj Kumar Daluja has not only cheated the Judiciary but also police department has been made by the petitioner. It is this observation which is said to be categorized as defamatory and derogatory in nature. It is no doubt that the Municipal Magistrate had not made that observation in his order but even then the accused persons had commented upon the order of the Magistrate. This opinion expressed by the accused in the paper was based upon order passed by the Municipal Magistrate. It is relevant to reproduce Exception 5th to Section 499 RPC herein as under:
Fifth Exception. - Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned -. It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.