Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J: This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated August 26, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No. 138 of 1968 dismissing under Section 203, Criminal P. C. the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 500, L P. C.

2. The respondent Moti Ram filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi against the seven appellants under Section 500, I. P. C. alleging that they made certain allegations against him which were defamatory in character and has also passed a resolution placing the respondent under suspension.

3. The complaint filed by the respondent is a fairly lengthy one and refers to various matters. But relevant facts which could be gathered from the same appear to be as follows:

4. The respondent during December, 1964 was serving as a Liaison Officer, Municipal Corporation, Delhi. The appellants were among the members of the Standing Committee of the Corporation at that time. The first appellant Balraj Khanna was bitterly inimical towards the respondent and was bent upon causing harm to him. He wielded considerable influence over the members of the Standing Committee. At his instance a requisition was given by the members of the Standing Committee to its Chairman to summon a meeting of the Committee to enable them to move a resolution for the immediate suspension of the respondent from his office. Accordingly a meeting of the Standing Committee was held on December 10, 1964. The said meeting was attended, not only by the Commissioner and other officers of the Corporation, but also by the press reporters. In that meeting the appellants made very serious allegations of a defamatory nature against the respondent and passed unanimously a resolution placing him under immediate suspension. The allegations made against the respondent and the fact of his suspension from office were given wide publicity, with the result that it brought down the respondent in the estimation of his friends causing harm to his reputation. P. W. 3, who was the Secretary of the Corporation, and who attended the meeting of the Standing Committee on December 10, 1964 sent a report the next day Ex. P. W. 3/B to the Commissioner regarding the allegations stated to have been made against the respondent by the appellants. The allegations referred to in P. W. 3/B are as follows:

"1. Since its inception in 1958 the Corporation has executed a very heavy programme of works for improving the sanitation of the Corporation and provide other civic amenities, but no publicity was given to these activities and the public has remained more or less in the dark. On the other hand the Corporation is adversely criticised even for minor omssions and commissions. The L.O. has, thus not performed the duties which are required of the post he has been holding and has been deficient in the performance of his duties.

2. The L. O. is not working in harmony with "the representatives of the Press who attend the Corporation office to cover the meetings of the Corporation and its Committee, so much so that these representatives have desired that he be not required to come to their rooms in the Corporation office.

3. Instead of applying himself seriously to his official work he indulges in estranging one member from the other, one officer for the other and one political party for the other. He has even been trying to sow seeds of estrangement between the Mayor and the Commissioners.

4. In the days when he was Chief Reporter to the Hindustan Times he resorted to undesirable means to achieve his desired ends.

5. His association with some of the non-Official Presidents of the erstwhile Delhi Municipal Committee has brought nothing but slur to their good names.

6. He is known for indulging in acts of moral turpitude and for seducing unsuspecting girls and women."

5. In the complaint it is further stated that in October, 1964, all the seven appellants entered into a conspiracy to defame the respondent and r