M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.

The revision petitioner is a retired Taluk Supply Officer hailing from Taliparamba. He is aggrieved that through the impugned order passed in C.M.P. No. 7688 of 1997 the complaint filed by him against the first respondent in this case alleging offence under Sec. 500 of the I.P.C. was dismissed under Sec. 203 of the Cr. P.C., inspite of the fact that he had examined three witnesses to prima facie establish the correctness of his averments.

2. In the complaint the petitioner alleged that the accused, who is working as R.D.O., Thalassery, while participating in the meeting of the Food Advisory Committee held in the Collectorate Hall, Cannanore on 20.7.1996, made certain imputations aimed at the petitioner. The accused allegedly referred to certain irregularities in the performance of the Universal Gas Agency. The complainant alleged that after making a statement that a complaint directly filed against the irregularities in the Gas Agency did not yield any result and that the circumstances prevailing are such that the delinquent would escape and the complainant would suffer and that actually after getting huge amounts the gas Cylinders were being illegally distributed, the accused made the following further statement :

"A retired supply officer of Taliparamba is the person behind this irregularity."

3. According to the petitioner he is the only retired Taluk Supply Officer of Taliparamba and the reference was obviously against him and his reputation is thereby harmed.

4. In support of the complaint the petitioner examined his successor Taluk Supply Officer, an independent witness and also the reporter of Sudinam Daily, who had attended the press conference which followed the aforesaid meeting of the Food Advisory Committee, wherein also the accused allegedly repeated the very same statements.

5. The court, after considering the said statements gave two reasons for dismissing the complaint. The first was that the words complained of did not refer to any particular individual; that it could equally apply to others belonging to the same class in so far as the accused did not mention the name of the present complainant at any point of time. Secondly, it was mentioned that the accused had filed a case of defamation against Sudinam Daily and as such it was unlikely that the accused would have divulged the defamatory statements alleged in the present case to CW3, the two being not on friendly terms in view of the pending criminal case.

6. What is to be considered is the legality, regularity and correctness of the aforesaid order of the Judicial First class Magistrate, Taliparamba.

7. This court did not issue notice to the first respondent, who was the accused cited before the learned Magistrate, for the reason that he has no locus standi at this stage. The learned Public Prosecutor, who was heard, submitted that it is essential for maintaining a complaint under Sec. 500 of the I.P.C. that there should be reference to the complainant by name or atleast the identity of the complainant should be clear from the imputations alleged in the complaint and also that the statements allegedly made in the present case in any case comes within the 9th Exception to Sec. 499 I.P.C., which reads as follows :

"Ninth Exception : Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests :-

It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it or of any other person, or for the public good."

He submits that the statement was made in public good and as such offence alleged could not be sustained against the present first respondent.

8. According to Mr. Satheesan, who represented the petitioner, all that is necessary is to prima facie establish that the alleged statements were aimed at the complainant though his name is not mentioned and that the applicability of the 9th Exception does