Lord Uthwatt.-

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ceylon affirming the dismissal by the District Court of Colombo of an action brought by the appellant Dr. M. G. Perera' in which he claimed damages for defamatory libel from the respondents who are the printer and owners of a newspaper called. The Ceylon Daily News. The libel complained of appeared in the issue of that paper of 25th May 1943, and consisted of an extract from the published report of a Commissioner who had been appointed under statutory powers to enquire into certain matters. The extract ran as follows :

"Dr. M. G. Perera who gave evidence was completely lacking in frankness and pretended that he knew very much less about the transaction than he actually did."

[2] The respondents took all defences. They denied that the words were defamatory-a formal defence in the circumstances. The other defences were not formal. They pleaded justification in the sense that the statement was true and that its publication was for the public benefit. Fair comment was pleaded. Privilege was relied on soon two grounds, first, that the proceedings before the Commissioner were judicial proceedings and the extract was part of an accurate report of those proceedings, and second, that, apart from the supposed judicial nature of the proceedings, the circumstances were such that the publication in the newspaper of the report was made on a privileged occasion. Neither the pleadings, the issues settled in the course of the proceedings, nor the conduct of the case at the trial, in any way limited the field of defence open to the respondents.

[3] On the settlement of the issues in the action it was made clear that the appellant did not set up express malice with a view to destroying any qualified privilege that might exist.

[4] The action arose in the following circumstances. It appears that in 1941 there were rumours in Ceylon that bribes had been offered to and accepted by members of the State Council. On 13th August 1941, the Governor, pursuant to a resolution passed by the State Council on 15th May 1941, set up a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance (No. 9 of 1872). Under the terms of the appointment Mr. De Silva, K. C., was appointed the Governor's Commissioner for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting upon the following questions :

"(a) Whether gratifications by way of gift, loan, fee, reward, or otherwise, are or have been offered, promised, given or paid to members of the existing State Council, with the object or for the purpose of influencing their judgment or conduct in respect of any matter or transaction for which they, in their capacity as members of that Council or of any Executive or other Committee thereof, are, have been, may be, or may claim to be, concerned, whether as of right or otherwise: and

(b) Whether such gratifications are or have been solicited, demanded, received or accepted by members of the existing State Council as a reward or recompense for any services rendered to any person or cause or for any action taken for the advantage or disadvantage of any person or cause, or in consideration of any promise or agreement to render any such services or to take any such action, whether as of right or otherwise in their capacity as members of that Council or of any Executive or other Committee thereof."

[5] The instrument of appointment then contained the following direction by the Governor :

"And I hereby authorise and empower you to hold all such inquiries and make all such investigations into the aforesaid matters as may appear to you to be necessary ; and I do hereby require you to transmit to me a report thereon under your hand as early as possible."

[6] To assist the Commissioner in this particular enquiry a further ordinance (No. 25 of 1942) was passed which empowered the Commissioner to hear the evidence or any part of the evidence of any witness in camera. Sections 5, 6 (1) and (2) and 10 (b) of the Ordinance run t