These two revision cases are closely connected. The petitioners are the same in both. They were convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ramnad for an offence under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code in C. C. Nos. 253 and 257 of 1945 on his file and sentenced in each case to pay a fine of Rs. 20 each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks.

The charges against them in the two cases are founded on certain statements made by them in the written statement filed by them in C.C. No. 5 of 1945 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ramnad, in which case they were the accused. The material part of the written statement filed by them therein marked as Ex. A is as follows:-

“Paragraph 14 P.W. 2’s father and his senior paternal uncle were accused along with Chottachami Thevar, father-in-law of Mappilaisami Thevar, in a dacoity case, R.C. No. 5 of 1916 filed by accused 2. P.W. 3, Tirumal Kone’s wife is being kept by Mappilaisami Thevar for the past two years and she is given jewels worth Rs. 300 and two bulls and eight kalams of paddy through P.W. 2 every year. The said Chottachami Thevar was keeping his wife’s cousin Papathi and she is given ten kurrukatns of Kolangorvai.”

In C C. No. 5 of 1945, the petitioners were charged for the offence of rioting. It was a part of the case of the petitioners that the prosecution was at the instigation of Mappilaisami Thevar who is described in the written statement as a rich and influential man and the father-in-law of the Rajah of Ramnad. According to them, the prosecution witnesses were partisans and satellites of that man. Though it may not be very important, it may be mentioned that the Magistrate who tried the case found that the allegation of the accused that Mappilaisami Thevar and his agents were at the back of the complaint was substantiated to some extent. Whether this be so or not, the petitioners obviously believed that the case was foisted on them at the instance of Mappilaisami Thevar and his agents.

In C.C. No. 253 of 1945 the complainant is one Velusami Thevar, a near relation of Chottachami Thevar, who appears to have died in 1941. In the other case, C.C. No. 257 of 1945 the complainant is Tirumal Kone, who was P.W. 3 in C.C. No. 5 of 1945.

Mr. Rangaswami Aiyangar, learned advocate for the petitioners in both the cases, contended that even assuming that the statements contained in paragraph 14 of the written statement referred to above were defamatory, the statements nevertheless fell within exception 9 to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioners were not liable to be convicted of the offence of defamation. To secure the protection of that exception it is necessary that the imputation should have been made in good faith and for the protection of the interest of the person making it or of any other person or for the public good. There is no question here of the imputation being for the public good. It is therefore necessary to determine whether the imputation was made in good faith and for the protection of the interest of the petitioners.

It appears to me to be clear that the statements in question were made for the sole purpose of discrediting the witnesses for the prosecution and in particular P.W. 3. As it was an integral part of the case for the accused that the prosecution against them was foisted on them at the instance of Mappilaisami Thevar any statements connecting any of the prosecuting witnesses intimately with Mappilaisami Thevar and his agents should be deemed to be statements made for the protection of the interests of the petitioners. It was urged by Mr. Krishna Rao for the complainants in both the cases that the fact that Tirumal Kone’s wife is alleged to have been kept by Mappilaisami Thevar does not necessarily lead to the inference that P.W. 3 would be amicably disposed towards Mappilaisami Thevar. Whether this is so or not would really depend upon the circumstances. If Mappilaisami Thevar, as he was alleged t