K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

1. Defendants in O.S. 369/1995 on the file of the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery and appellants in A.S. 13/2000 of Additional District Court (Adhoc), Kalpetta are the appellants herein.

2. The suit was one filed by the plaintiff for compensation for the defamatory publication made by the appellants against the respondent herein to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint was that, she was working as a police constable in Thirunelli Police Station at the relevant time. The defendants are the editor, printer and publisher of Rashtra Deepika Ltd., a daily published from Kottayam having circulation in several parts of Kerala including at Wayanad. She is having good reputation. Apart from a responsible women police officer, she was engaged in other social activities in association with several organisations dealing with empowerment of women and uplifting the needs of tribal people in that locality, thereby she acquired a good reputation among the members of the society. The defendants had published a news item under the caption VERNACULAR MATTER in their daily dated 22.05.95 without ascertaining the truth of the events and the publication was produced as Ext.A1, which contained certain innuendo pertaining the plaintiff without naming her with a view to defame her among the public. It was published by them knowing that the allegations made against her in the news item as an antecedent were false and not true. A reading of the news item will go to show that, it was intended to malign the plaintiff and nothing more. On reading the news item, the friends and well wishers of the plaintiff expressed an astonishment and anguish and they tried to avoid her and not allowing her to participate in the programmes organized by the organization with which she was associated earlier. She suffered loss of reputation on account of the publication. It is alleged in the news item that, she was punished for ragging boys while studying in the college and she uttered abusive words at the auto rickshaw drivers of Sulthan Bathery while she was working as traffic police and these allegations were made only with a view to cause loss of reputation to her and nothing more. She sent a notice to the defendants asking them to publish an apology and also to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-, but they sent a reply with false allegations. So she filed the suit for damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for the loss of reputation caused to her on account of the deformatory publication made by the defendants against the plaintiff.

3. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. They further contended that the suit is not maintainable and they denied the allegations that the plaintiff is having good reputation and her reputation has been affected on account of the publication made. They further contended that the paper report was not defamatory one and what was stated therein were true and there was no reference to the plaintiff's name and as such no action for defamation would lie in civil court. Further the report was published in good faith and in public interest without malice and the statement was covered by qualified privilege. The news item was gathered from reliable sources and it was published in other newspapers also. But plaintiff did not proceed against other newspapers but only initiated action against the present defendants alone. The allegation that on reading the news item, the friends and well wishers of the plaintiff expressed their anguish and astonishment is false and denied. They have no intention to defame the plaintiff, the news items was published in discharge of a duty as a journalist and with view to prevent repetition of such things in future. Further an enquiry was conducted by DIG of police regarding the allegations came in the newspapers and found to be genuine and action has been taken against the plaintiff and others responsible for t