Pandrang Row, J.

1. [After dealing with the facts his Lordship continued.]

2. The defamation having been established beyond doubt it only remains to consider whether the amount of damages awarded by the Court below is reasonable. It may be mentioned in this connection that before the suit was filed there was a criminal prosecution at the instance of the father of the plaintiff which resulted in the conviction of all the defendants which was upheld in the High Court on revision. It is argued that the very fact that there had been, a criminal prosecution and a conviction obtained before the civil suit was launched is itself a reason for reducing the amount of damages, and reliance has been placed on the decision in Ma Sein Tin v. U Kyaw Maung A.I.R. 1936 Rang. 332. At page 334 there are certain observations which show that the learned Judge disapproved conduct of this kind, that is, the filing of a civil suit for damages after a criminal prosecution, though the law grants both remedies to the wronged person. We are not prepared to accept this view, namely, that where the law permits two remedies a party who avails himself of one remedy after another should not get, so to say, a