Shri Tek Chand has filed this petition in revision. A complaint filed by him was dismissed by Shri K.S. Pathak, Special Magistrate, First Class, Dehradun.

2. He filed a petition in revision against that order of the learned Magistrate but it was also dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Dehradun.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the two-Courts below, Shri Tek Chand has filed the-present revision petition in this Court.

4. Shri Tek Chand is a resident of 68, Jhanda Mohalla, Kotwali, Dehradun. He filed a complaint under Section 500, I.P.C., against Shri R.K. Karanjiya, Chief Editor,, printer and publisher of "Blitz", Hindi weekly of Bombay, Shri Munish Saxena, Editor of the said weekly and Shri A. Raghavan, correspondent of the said weekly. It was alleged that, in the Hindi edition of the said paper dated 28th March 1964, the accused published imputations on pp. 3 and 15, which were false to their knowledge and were meant to harm the reputation of Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh, the members of which are spread all over the country. According to the complainant, the remarks were scandalous and on account of the same, the members of the said body have been lowered down in public estimate. The complainant was a member of the said body. Consequently, the article had caused immense harm to the reputation of the complainant and he has been lowered down in the estimate of his relations, friends and acquaintances as well as in the eyes of the public. It was also alleged that like him, the other members of that body have also been injured. The heading of the article published at the third page of that issue of the paper is as follows :-

"Sharnarthiyon ki madad kametteyan dokhe ki tatti--dange ke pichhe R.R.S. aur Pakistani ajentonka hath."

On the top of the article appears the picture of Shri Golwalker who is Sar Sangh Chalak of that body.

5. It is not necessary for me to quote the actual article in this order because the question whether the article is really' defamatory or not is not before me.

6. The ground on which the complaint has been dismissed in effect is that even if the article in question be defamatory of a whole class, it cannot be said that the reputation of the complainant individually had been affected by the same.

7. The two Courts below have held that the complaint was not maintainable in that view of the matter.

8. The learned Additional District Magistrate has also expressed the view that Explanation (2) of Section 499, I.P.C., deals with defamation of a class which is not too large. Second Explanation of Section 499, I.P.C., reads as follows :-

"It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such." The test laid down by various Courts for the application of Explanation (2) of Sec. 499, I.P.C., appears to be that the class or the association of persons must not be unidentifiable. If it is identifiable in the sense that it is definite, then the remarks about it are defamatory of the class within the meaning of Section 499, I.P.C. The complainant is a member of the body against which the defamatory remarks are said to have been made in that article. My attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the revisionist to the constitution of the body for the purpose of convincing me that it cannot be said that the body in question is indefinite or not identifiable. There is a regular constitution by which the body is controlled and there are various offices mentioned in the constitution which are held by the members of that body. It is not clear why the learned Magistrate, without examining all the evidence that may have been produced on behalf of the complainant, took a decision to the effect that the body against which the remarks have been made in the article is too large, meaning thereby that it is unidentifiable. Without considering the evidence that the complainant could have produced in support of his complaint, the conclusion at