The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the substantial truth of the defamatory matter, good faith in the publication, and the public interest served by the publication under the exceptions to S. 499, Penal Code.

HONNIAH J. :-

By this appeal, the appellant Sivage Gowda challenges the correctness of the order of acquittal of the respondent T. Narayana, the Editor, Printer and Publisher of "Mysore Patrika" of the offence under S. 500, Penal Code. Criminal proceedings against the respondent were started on a complaint by Sivage Gowda, who was at the relevant time a student of the Maharaja's College, Mysore, studying in the senior M. A. class. In the complaint Sivage Gowda alleged that the respondent had published in his news paper ''Mysore Patrika", D/-5-9-63 and 21-9-63 a statement against him, which was highly defamatory of him. According to the complainant, the defamatory statement was absolutely untrue and by publishing it, the accused had rendered himself liable to be punished under S. 500, Penal Code.

2. The facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are these: The complainant was a student at the material time studying in the senior M. A. class in Maharaja's College at Mysore and Dr. C. Parvathamma (D. W. 4) was the Reader teaching Sociology for senior M. A. class students. On 2-8-63 a seminar class was held by Dr. Parvathamma, in which one Pushpa Ratna a student of the senior M. A. class read out an essay, the subject being 'Status of woman in Contemporary Society." It appears, while reading the essay Pushpa Ratna made some aspersions against the male students. The complainant became annoyed at the aspersions and therefore he requested Dr. Parvathamma that the matter be discussed. Dr. Parvathamma did not allow the discussion. It could be gathered from the evidence that there was some exchange of words between the complainant and Dr. Parvathamma and the situation became tense. Dr. Parvathamma, apprehending some danger, managed to send Pushpa Ratna from out of the class room on some pretext. Even thereafter, as the situation became tense, Dr. Parvathamma appears to have sought the help of others to bring the complainant under control, but without success. Thereafter the complainant left the class room by going through the window in anger.

3. Again on 9-8-1963 there was a seminar class and as usual Dr. Parvathamma took the class. The male students headed by the complainant demanded that there should be a discussion on the essay read out by Pushpa Ratna on the previous occasion, but Dr. Parvathamma refused permission. Again there was exchange of words between the two and as Dr. Parvathamma did not accede to the request of the complainant, the complainant again walked out of the class room.

4. According to the complainant, he learnt from his friend Siddaramiah, who has not been examined in this case, that Dr. Parvathamma had stated that the complainant had written love letters to Pushpa Ratna and therefore Pushpa Ratna made those remarks in her essay. Except the complainant's version, there is no other evidence to show that Dr. Parvathamma did make such a statement to Siddaramiah. Dr. Parvathamma, who has been examined in this case, has not been questioned on this point. On the same evening the complainant went to the house of Dr. Parvathamma. The complainant has stated that he went there in order to question her in regard to the alleged statement made by her to Siddaramiah.

Whatever may be the reason, it is not disputed in this case that the complainant went to the private house of Dr. Parvathamma at about 7 p. m. At that time Mir Ahmed Ali (D. W. 2) Sub-Inspector of Police, Lakshmipur Police station, was recording the statement of Dr. Parvathamma in connection with the complaint given by her against one Puttanna, The complainant entered the compound, went near the door and stated to Dr. Parvathamma that he wanted to talk to her, for which she refused. The complainant behaved in a rude manner and according to the evidence he threatened her and was in a mood to assault her. As Dr. Parvathamma did not allow him to talk to her, the complainant left the place saying something, presumably abusing her.

5. The following day