The judgment establishes the principles of defamation by innuendo, the limitations of freedom of the press, and the responsibility of journalists in publishing content that may defame individuals.

1. The courts below concurrently found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under S, 501 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The petitioner is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a daily, 'A1 Ameen'. The issue of the news payer dated 25-8-78 carried a report from Chokly (Ext. P1(a)), that a young lady of the locality consulted a local medical practitioner for an ailment of her child, and that the physician wanted to examine her. Despite her protestations that she was in no need for medical attention, and had no money to pay for the same, she was persuaded to submit to a clinical examination. It turned to be such, that the woman had to flee from the physician to save her honour. The report goes on to say, that the medical practitioner, who was rendering free treatment on Saturdays had a weakness for comely woman and that as a result of his attentions, a woman patient was put to the necessity of an abortion. The complainant, P. W.1 avers that the reference though veiled, is unmistakably to him, and that the readers of Ext. P1 (a) thought so. He says, his portrayal as a lecherous person, lowered his moral character and that he fell in the estimation of those who read Ext. P1 (a). His professional standing was also tarnished. To prove the charges, besides the complainant (P. W. 1), P. W. 2 was also examined.

2. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of the charge, and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. The court of Session affirmed the conviction and sentence. The courts below relied on the evidence of P. Ws.1 and 2, to find the charge.

3. Counsel for petitioner argues that neither the medical practitioner, nor the woman was named in the report and that there are other doctors at Chokli who answer the description in the report.

4. On the contrary, the respondent's counsel would say that the publication soon after the complaint by Nabeesu, the close resemblance between Nabeesu's complaint and the contents of the report, the reference to the medical practitioner giving free treatment, and the setting in which the report was made, unfailingly suggest to a reasonable mind, that it related to P. W.1. The courts below for this reason found that the charge was proved. I do not think that the finding on evidence, is vitiated by any irregularity, illegality or impropriety.

5. Relying on Raman Namboodiri v. Govindan (1962 KLT 538), counsel for petitioner contends that the identity of the complainant should be established. The proposition is beyond reproach. But, it is not always necessary to name the person. If the description and attendant circumstances suggest with fair certainty the identity of the person intended, that is sufficient to attract the offence. Explanation.3 to S.499 states that an imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may also amount to defamation. Defamation by innuendo is well known. Hicks' case is illustrative in this regard. Gatley on Libel and Slander 8th Edition (para 281) states:

"To succeed in an action of defamation it must not only be proved that the defendant published the words and that they are defamatory: He must also identify himself as the person defamed. No writing whatsoever, is to be esteemed a libel unless it reflects upon some particular person. It is not necessary that the words should refer by name".

The reference need not be explicit. If the description is such that a reasonable person in the context in which it is made, will understand it as a reference to a particular person, it would suffice. It is not always that a libellous statement is made with directness, nor, does it mean that as long as it is not by specific reference, so long it is not libel. A degree of indirectness or innuendo is noticed in such attempts, and is to be expected. To defame is an offence, and it is reasonable to think that he who defames is not anxious to invite legal consequences. Satire or lampoo