JUDGMENT

Jenkins, J. - The accused is charged, first, with defamation under sec. 500, I. P. C., and secondly, with printing defamatory matter under sec. 501, I. P. C. The charges as set forth in the indictment are 18 in number. (Here His Lordship explained the various charges in the indictment to the Jury). It will appear from the charges that the counts Nos. 1 to 8 refer to offences committed against Kusum Kumari Maitra, Nos. 9 to 16, those against Heramba Chandra Maitra, as the husband o Kusum Kumari Maitra, while Nos. 17 and 18 refer to offences committed against both Kusum Kumari Maitra and Heramba Chandra Maitra, as members of the Sadharan Brahmo Samaj.

2. Sec. 500, as explained by sec. 499 of the Indian Penal Code, stands thus:--

Sec. 499. "Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs, or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputations concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputations will harm the reputation of such person, is said, except, in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person."

Explanation 4.--"No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation, directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or his calling or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful."

Sec. 500. "Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment, &c, &c."

3. Sec, 501 runs thus:--

Whoever prints or engraves any matter knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment, &c, &c.

4. The offences with which the accused is charged are the creation of the Indian Penal Code, and consequently the English cases to which reference has been made afford little or no assistance in determining the nature of the offences charged. The essential elements of the offence under the Indian Statute under sec. 500, are 1st, that the words which form the subject matter of the alleged defamation were intended to be read; 2ndly, that by these words an imputation was made concerning a person; 3rdly, that the imputation, directly or indirectly in the estimation of others lowered the moral or intellectual character of that person.

5. Under sec. 501, 1st, that the accused printed the defamatory matter; 2ndly, that the intention of the accused was to harm the person, or that he had reason to believe that it would so harm the person. A person is said to have known or to have sufficient cause to believe what the results of his action would be, when, as a matter of fact, it results as a natural consequence of his action.

6. In considering the offence with which the accused has been charged, it is necessary to examine what the relations between the complainant and the accused were both previous and subsequent to the poem appearing in the Hitabadi.

7. A brief history of the case. In 1836, the Brahmo Samaj came into existence. It is divided into three sects, the Adi, the Navabidhan, and the Sadharan Brahmo Samaj. The last of these was the result of a secession in 1878, and the complainant is a prominent member of that Samaj; he is also a promoter of the Social Purity movement.

8. In December 1894, there was a meeting of the National Congress at Madras, which was attended by the accused and the complainant; they both travelled on board the same steamer from Calcutta to Madras, in company with others, who proposed attending the Congress, and in the course of the voyage a discussion arose about the desirability of a certain gentleman who has been described as A. B., attending the Congress meetings. As a result, a protest was signed by several of the delegates on board the steamer, and amongst the signatories were the accused and