The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the accused to prove that the imputations fall within the exceptions of S. 499 of the Penal Code, the importance of pre-publication enquiry, and the need for substantial truth in the imputations for the defence of fair comment.

The printer and publisher of a daily newspaper was prosecuted for the offence of defamation. She was acquitted by the trial magistrate and hence the complainant has come up in appeal. The complainant is the President of Cannanore Co-operative Clinic and Nursing Home Society. The newspaper in which the imputation were published has circulation in and around Cannanore where the hospital run by the Society is situated. The imputations were published in the Readers' column of the newspaper in the name of "a well wisher". There is no dispute that the accused is the publisher of the newspaper, nor has the publication been disowned except saying that the name of the "well wisher" is Sri Karunakaran.

2. The imputations were published under the caption "Enquiry must be held into the affairs of the Co-operative Hospital". The publication, as a letter to the editor, mentions about the functioning of the co-operative hospital of which the complainant is the president. The following are the three main imputations about which the complainant has serious grievance. (1) The consequence of Kunhambu's (complainant) holding the post of Presidentship and the Manager's administration of the hospital is that a large number of embezzlements are taking place in the hospital. (2) The allotment of night duty to nurses in the hospital is now made at the whims and convenience of the President and Manager of the hospital. One particular nurse is being harassed by compelling her to attend night-duty on all days. (3) The President is in the habit of giving his signature on the vouchers prepared to suit the needs of the person who prepares them. This practice of the President would lead the hospital to doldrums.

3. Learned magistrate acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the imputations have not been incorporated in the body of the complaint. Learned magistrate has also observed that the publication is justified although it has slightly transgressed the limit. Reference has been made to the decision of Padmanabhan, J. in Madhavi Ammav. Sherief, 1985 Ker LT 330 : (1985 Cri LJ 1496) in support of the conclusion that the complaint is defective inasmuch as it did not incorporate at least the questioned portions of the publication. In the said decision, the learned Judge has extracted the averments made in the complaint in that case and held that "a mere reading of the complainant alone will not impress anybody that the publications were defamatory to any extent and that it goes without saying that the complaint by itself does not make out a cause of action at all".

5. Can it be held that an accused is entitled to acquittal merely because the libellous imputations are not separately reproduced in the complaint ? It is true that in a case slander, the non-mention of slanderous words in the complaint any amount to denial of opportunity to the accused to know of what imputations he is prosecuted against : Similarly when the complaint pertains to libel non-mention of the libellous words in the complaint can have the same consequence if the copy of the publication is not attached with the complaint. But the position is different when the complainant produces the document, along with the complaint, containing the imputations. In Balraj Khanna v. Motiram, 1971 SCC (Crl) 647 : (1971 Cri LJ 1110) the following guidelines have been laid down by the Supreme Court to deal with a complaint which does not incorporate the words complained against. "The actual words used or the statement made may be reproduced verbatim by the complainant if the words are few and the statement is very brief. But in cases where the words spoken are too many or the statements made are too long in our opinion, it will be the height of technicality to insist that the actual words and the entire statements should be reproduced verbatim. The object of having, if possible, the actual words or the statements before the Court is to enable it to consider whether those words or the stat