Acquittal of accused by giving benefit of doubt would not mean clear acquittal. In other words when accused is acquitted by extending to him a benefit of doubt, it can not be permitted to be held that the case itself was false.

Palok Basu, J.

1. Mahabir and three others have approached this court under section 482 CrPC praying that the complaint under 500 IPC filed by Shiv Gopal against them be quashed. One of the questions however, is whether accused can be permitted to raise a plea of an exception even before any evidence is led either by the prosecution or by the accused and the other allied question is as to whether even when the accused in the former case have been acquitted by extending to them benefit of doubt, can they still institute a complaint under section 500 IPC against the complainant and witnesses of the former case ?

2. Shiv Gopal preferred a complaint under section 500 IPC in the court of Magistrate on the allegations that Jagdish Prasad applicant no. 3 had lodged a false complaint about a dacoity charge against SHIV Gopal, his three sons and others, which case was committed to the court of Sessions and ultimately ended in acquittal from the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitapur, and, applicant nos.1, 2 and 4 have deposed falsely in support of the aforesaid false case, the relevant statements of Jagdish Prasad and three witnesses were incorporated in the complaint. On examining the allegations and the statements of the complaint and the witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 CrPC the Magistrate summoned all the four applicants. On appearance, an application on behalf of the accused was filed before the Magistrate that the proceedings be quashed on the ground that no offence was made out from the reading of the complaint because the complainant and others had been acquitted in that case by extending to them benefit of doubt. It was specifically pleaded that the said case was thus covered by exception-8 of section 499 IPC and, therefore, proceedings for defamation punishable under section 500 IPC were not maintainable.

I have heard Sri P. L. Misra learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R. K. Sharma appearing on behalf of the complainant and also the Addl. Public Prosecutor at length.

3. Normally the question of proving the exception would depend always on the evidence produced by the person who seeks its benefit. Even so far as the question of good faith is concerned, relevant evidence will have to be led at the trial. The argument of Sri Mishra, however, in the instant case is that the certified copy of the judgment filed before the Magistrate itself indicated that the action of filling the complaint was not false because the accused were acquitted on extending to them benefit of doubt. The argument proceeds on the basis that an acquittal recorded by any competent court by extending benefit of doubt to an accused does not render the allegations made in that complaint false and therefore charge of defamation is out of question. Sri Sharma on the other hand has argued that so far as the complaint is concerned, he must be given an opportunity to prove his case that the allegations in the earlier complaint were wholly false and by preferring it the prestige and character of the complainant had been lowered down in the estimation of others. It is further argued that if the mere recital in the order of acquittal that the accused were being acquitted by extending to them benefit of doubt was the only relevant consideration, right of the prosecution or the complainant will be seriously transgressed because they did not have any control as to on what ground the court will be recording the order of acquittal.

4. In order to determine this controversy we have no option but fall back on provision of law contained in section 499 IPC. Exception-8 of 499 IPC reads as follows :- "It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawfull authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation " Illustration. If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate. If A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant to Z's master :

If A in good faith com