JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal arises out of a civil action for damages for defamation, the facts of which are briefly as follows:

2. The defendant, who is the appellant before us, was prosecuted in a Criminal Court for an offence u/s 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The plaintiff, who is a Pleader, appeared to defend him. The Court allowed bail and the plaintiff stood surety for the defendant to the extent of Rs. 100. Not being sure of his client, however, he asked the Court to allow Rs. 100 to be deposited in cash. The prayer was granted. The defendant produced the cash giving it to the plaintiff and it was actually deposited on the same date, August 22nd, 1913, in the Sub-Treasury at Shikohabad. There was some error in the usual procedure for the depositing of money and the full number of acknowledgments was not issued.

3. On the 4th September 1913 the case was heard and the defendant acquitted. On that date, however, he employed another Pleader; on 17th September 1913 he filed a petition stating that no receipt had been issued by the Treasury and he was in doubt as to whether the money had actually been deposited by the plaintiff. He asked for inquiry to be made from the Tahsildar. Inquiry was ordered and made and on September 22nd, 1913, the Court received a reply that the money had actually been deposited on August 22nd. Without first inquiring from the Court the result of the inquiry ordered, the defendant, on September 24th, 1913, filed a written complaint in the Court of the District Magistrate charging the plaintiff with having committed the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust in respect to the sum of Rs. 100.

4. The District Magistrate issued no process on this complaint, but made a preliminary inquiry and dismissed it on ascertaining the fact as to the deposit. The plaintiff thereupon prosecuted the defendant in a Criminal Court. For reasons with which we are not concerned, the defendant was acquitted.

5. The plaintiff then filed the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to recover Rs. 1,000 as damages for defamation. The Courts below have decreed the claim to the extent of Rs. 200. Hence the present appeal by the defendant.

6. The plea raised on his behalf is that in a civil action arising out of facts such as have been found in the present case, the defendant has an absolute privilege and is absolutely protected by the law from a civil action for damages for defamation.

7. For the plaintiff it is urged that in such a case there is no absolute privilege hut only a qualified privilege and that as the defendant did not act in good faith he is not protected. There being a conflict of rulings on the point, the case has been referred to this Full Bench for decision.

8. We deem it necessary, in view of certain arguments that have been raised before us in regard to the criminal law of defamation, to emphasize in the forefront of our judgment that we are "not" here concerned with libel as a criminal offence, but only with the civil wrong and the right to redress in a civil action. The civil and the criminal law and procedure do not, in our opinion, coincide but are independent of each other. We may quote as an instance one admitted difference between the civil and the criminal law. In a civil action the plea of mere truth is, if established, a complete defence. In a criminal charge it is not so, for the accused has further to prove the fact that it was for the public good that the imputation was made or published. We, therefore, restrict ourselves to the civil wrong and the right to redress in a civil action. Next, it is clear (and is also admitted before us) that the English rule of law on the point for decision is well established and beyond discussion and that under that rule the appellant before us would be absolutely protected. It is unnecessary, therefore, to discuss the English decisions on a principle which has been accepted for generations and has never been questioned in England. It has been recognised by