The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Exception 9 of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, which requires the accused to establish good faith and public good for protection against defamation charges.

( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 5-1-1996 passed by the learned JMFC, II Court, in C. C. No. 1514 of 1987 acquitting the respondents 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the indian Penal Code, the appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the same.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the complainant and the respondents are accused 1, 2 and 3. While narrating the facts, the ranks of the parties shall be followed as in the Lower Court.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the complainant he belongs to a famous and well known family of Doddamane Hegde of Siddapur and their family enjoys the distinction of having participated in independence movement. The members of the family of the appellant are engaged in agriculture and sericulture and some members run a rice mill also. The appellant is the founder President of S. S. P. Samithi, Siddapur and has close association with (1) Samaja Shikshana Vishwast Samithi, (2) Modern Education society and (3) Sarvodaya Vakkalutana Prathamika Bank etc. The appellant has served the society in many capacities. He has acquired the status and position in the society by rendering selfless service. The then chief Minister of Karnataka Sri Ramakrishna Hegde and the appellant are cousin brothers.

( 4 ) THE respondent 1 is a politician calling himself as the then President of Kranthiranga. He aspired for occupying the position of Chief minister of Karnataka and was disappointed as Sri Ramakrishna Hegde became the Chief Minister. He was frustrated and was waiting for an opportunity to mar the image of Sri Ramakrishna Hegde and the members of his family. Sri Ramakrishna Hegde contested to the Legislative assembly from Kanakapura constituency and the respondent 1 had also fielded his candidate to oppose Sri Ramakrishna Hegde. During the time of the said election, the respondent 1 in order to achieve his object, invited the reporters and correspondents of all the newspapers and the said press conference was attended by reporters and correspondents including respondents 2 and 3. At the said conference, the respondent 1 made scandalous and false imputation concerning complainant and requested the correspondents to publish his statement in the newspapers. The said statement was printed and published in Samyuktha Karnataka daily, Hubli, which is being printed and published by respondents 2 and3. The said newspaper is circulated widely in Karnataka. In the said statement the respondent has made allegations that the appellant is involved in smuggling of rice and the officials are not taking action. The appellant states that the above imputations were made and published with full knowledge of falsity and also with the knowledge that it would defame and harm the reputation of the complainant. Knowing fully well that these imputations are false, deliberately and intentionally has, hurled false charges that the appellant was smuggling the rice.

( 5 ) THE appellant has also stated that the reputation and the status of his family known for its honesty, integrity and social service for over a century has been erased from the mind of the public. As the newspapers are widely circulated on publication of said imputation, several persons from various walks of life approached the complainant and made enquiries. The said imputation is defamatory, contemptuous and harmful to the reputation and it has degraded the morale and intellectual character of appellant both as a businessman and as a prominent social worker. On account of such defamatory statement, the status of the complainant and the members of his family is lowered in the estimation of the members of the public and Government. After the publication, the appellant got issued a legal notice calling upon the respondent 1 to tender unconditional apology. The respondent 1 replied to the notice refusing to tender an apology. Hence, the complaint was filed.

( 6 ) FOR the prosecution, P. Ws. 1 to 8 are examined a