Truth as a defense in defamation must extend to the entire statement and be for the public good.

Complainant in C.C. 47/81 on the file of the Chief Judl. Magistrate's Court, Quilon is the appellant in this appeal. The private complaint filed against the accused 3 in number was one for offences punishable under S. 500 read with S. 34, I.P.C Complainant is a Physical Education Teacher employed in the Government High School at Pattazhi. Accused 1 and 2 are the President and Secretary respectively of the Paramanandodayam S.N.D.P. Branch No. 676 at Maloor. The third accused is the Proprietor of Vijaya Press situated in Pathanapuram Town. The complainant's case is that on 16-3-1981 Ext. P-1 pamphlet was printed by the third accused in his press at the instance of accused 1 and 2 in pursuance of their common intention to defame the complainant, and the copies of the printed pamphlets were distributed by the accused in several parts of the Quilon District including Quilon town. The contents of Ext. P-1 are per se defamatory and that its publication is punishable under S. 500 read with S. 34, I.P.C.

2. The pamphlet is in the nature of an address to the members of the community, in order to bring to their notice the misdeeds of the complainant in his relationship with Maloor S.N.D.P. branch. It is alleged therein that the complainant is a defaulter in the payment of subscriptions and dues to the S.N.D.P. branch and that without clearing the arrears of subscriptions the complainant was adopting a short-cut method of approaching the Adinattu S.N.D.P. Branch No. 1263 for getting Vivaha Pathrika for conducting his sister's marriage. The complainant's activities against the interest of Maloor S.N.D.P. branch are narrated in Ext. P-1. It has been further stated that they are the acts of a teacher, who should set an example to other members of the society. Reference was also made to the complainant's father's activities of similar nature. The complainant has been described as a Drill Master and an Ignoramus.

3. On the side of the complainant P.Ws. 1 to 8 were examined and Exts. P-1 to P-7 were marked. The accused got D.Ws. 1 to 3 examined and Exts. D-1 to D-10 proved. After considering this evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the conduct of accused 1 and 2 would come within the First Exception to S. 499, I.P.C. and hence they are not guilty of any offence. Accordingly all the accused were acquitted under S. 255(1) of the Cr.P.C. Hence this appeal.

4. Accused 1 and 2 admit that they have got Ext. P-1 pamphlet printed at the press belonging to the third accused and that it was published by them. The third accused also admit that Ext. P-1 pamphlet was printed by him in his press at the instance of accused 1 and 2. The further contention of accused 1 and 2 who are the President and Secretary of the S.N.D.P. Branch, Maloor is that the General Body of the branch approved the draft of Ext. P-1 and authorised them to get it printed and to publish the same. It was only on account of the authority given by the General Body that they published Ext. P-1 pamphlet and that it contains only statements which are true. The accused plead justification under Exception (1) to S. 499, I.P.C. The said exception states that it is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. To come within this exception the imputation should not only be proved to be true, but it must also be proved that it was for the public good that it was published. In other words, no amount of truth will justify a libel unless its publication was for the good of the public. A subject may become one of public interest if the public or a section of the public become interested in it. When truth is set up as a defence it must extend to the entire matter published and it is not sufficient that only a portion of the statement is proved to be true.

5. Ext. P-1 contains statements regarding the ac