The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a complaint of defamation to be valid, the imputation must make a particular reference to the individual member of the collection of persons.

Sri.V.S. Achuthanandan, leader of opposition in the Kerala Legislative Assembly, is now an accused in a criminal case indicted on a charge for the offence of defamation under S.500 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint against him has been filed by the respondent before the Court of a judicial magistrate of first class. Respondent describes himself as Vice President of a local unit of Bharathiya Janalha Party (BJP). This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Procedure Code') to have the complaint quashed.

2. In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner made an imputation against BJP to the effect that Shri.K. Karunakaran (present Chief Minister of Kerala) has paid lakhs of rupees to BJP for winning the last general elections. According to the complainant, the said imputation is a calumny which was hurled for damaging the reputation of the party and it has inflicted insult and loss of reputation to him as well as to the BJP workers like him.

3. Upon the said complaint learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the accused. Petitioner contends that learned magistrate ought not have taken cognizance of the offence upon the said complaint as the complainant cannot be regarded as a person aggrieved by the imputation.

4. In the complaint, BJP is described as a party consisting of lakhs of followers. However, complainant was not mentioned in the imputation, expressly or even impliedly, nor has there been any reference to any office bearer or follower of BJP. Petitioner contends that the complaint was filed only for gaining publicity and that no purpose will be served by keeping the complaint on file. Institution of criminal proceedings on the alleged statement is a sheer abuse of process of law, according to the petitioner.

5. Under S.499 of the Penal Code (which defines the offence of defamation), the imputation should have been made or published "concerning any person intending to harm (or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm) the reputation of such person". However, Explanation 2 of the Section further expanded its amplitude by providing that "it may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such". Has there been no such explanation, there is little scope to contend that the offence could be committed against any collection of persons. How far the said explanation would protect the complainant's case, is the point which calls for consideration in this petition.

6. Section 199 of the Procedure Code contains a ban that no court shall take cognizance of the offence of defamation except on a complaint made by "some person aggrieved by the offence". Hence the expression "some person aggrieved by the offence" has a perceptible bearing on the question involved here. The words "association or collection of persons" in S.499 of the Penal Code have to be understood in conjunction with the expression "person aggrieved", though the two expressions are in two different codes. "Collection of persons" is an elastic expression as it may apply to a very small unit as well as to a huge mass of people. In other words, it can have a limited construction and a very wide connotation. If it stretches to the latter its frontiers can transcend even beyond the frontiers of a nation, eg. the expression "Indians" can be termed as denoting to a collection of people residing in and outside the country. It is certainly not in that wide sense that legislature would have used the expression "association or collection of people". Otherwise, if somebody makes an imputation against Indians as a whole, every Indian would be entitled to file complaint in a magistrate court of his own choice. Similarly if somebody makes an imputation against Keralites, every Keralite can file complaint in any one of the magistrate courts in Kerala. The consequence would be that criminal courts would be i