UDAY SINHA, J.

1. These are four applications for quashing a criminal action for defamation initiated against the petitioners by the complainants, who are four Advocates of this Court. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The complaint giving rise to the criminal action against the petitioners was filed before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Patna on 16-11-1971. The learned Magistrate examined the complainants on solemn affirmation and sent the matter for inquiry to Shri Lala Agam Prasad. Magistrate, First Class. On receipt of the inquiry report, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate issued processes against the petitioners for taking their trial under Sections 500 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) by his order dated 20-1-1972 and thereby the entire prosecution lodged against them.

2. All the petitioners were associated with the production of a film (Nadan). The petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous 964 of 1972 played the role of the heroine in the film, Navin Nischal, petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous 866 of 1972 played the role of the hero in the abovementioned film, Deven Verma, petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous 894 of 1972 was the Writer, Producer and Director of the film. Besides, he had also a small role in the film. In Criminal Miscellaneous 1119 of 1972 there are four petitioners. Petitioners 1, 3 and 4 in that application played minor roles in the film. Petitioner No.2. Akhtar-Ull-Imam was the Dialogue Writer of the film. The Chairman, Central Board of Film Censors was made accused No.6 in the complaint end processes have been issued against him as well, but no application for quashing the proceeding has been filed by him.

3. The substance of the allegations against the accused in the complaint was that all the accused had aided and abetted the production of the film in question which was defamatory to the reputation of the Advocates as a class, and, therefore, they were liable to be punished under Sections 500 and 108 of the Code. The Chairman, Central Board of Film Censors was alleged to have aided and abetted the offence of defamation by granting them the necessary certificate for exhibiting the picture as required by the Cinematograph Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The complaint contains some samples of the dialogues in the film which are said to be defamatory. The defamatory statements are alleged to have been made by accused Deven Verma, Ashit Sen and Sunder. The other accused are not alleged to have made any statement or gesture which could be described as defamatory in any manner, but by taking part in the production of the film they are alleged to have aided and abetted the offence of defamation of the complainants. It should be stated here that all the four Advocates are members of a Firm by the name and style of Khetan Advocate and Advocates. Besides the alleged defamatory dialogues and scenes referred to in the complaint, it has been stated in paragraph 15 of the complaint that "there are more defamatory statements in this film which shall be produced if and when required".

4. The ground common to all the applications for quashing the prosecution is that the dialogues and sequences in the film do not constitute the offence of defamation in terms of Sec. 499 of the Code. I shall, therefore, proceed to consider whether Advocates as a class can be defamed or not, in terms of Sec. 499 of the Code and if the answer be in the affirmative which of the accused would be liable for the same.

5. Before proceeding to consider the main argument on behalf of the petitioner, I must express my extreme displeasure at the conduct of the complainants, in making the Chairman of the Central Board of Film Censors (hereinafter referred to as the Board) an accused in the case for not having censored !he defamatory statements and at the cavalier manner in which the learned Magistrate acted in issuing processes against the Chairm