JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner Santosh Kumar Chatterjee who is the Printer and Publisher of the Bengali Newspaper 'swadhinata' has been convicted under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for defamation cf an association known as the Students' Welfare Association or Chhatra Mangal Samity of Belghoria and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30/-in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. In the Calcutta edition of Swadhinata dated the 18th November 1957, there was an item of news published under the heading: "from our special correspondent", with the date 15th November, stating that activity of anti-social persons was causing of late an anxiety to the people of Belghoria and that security of the citizens had been endangered by murder, assault, theft on public roads, snatching of ornaments from ladies in broad day-light, insult to teachers and so on. There was a complaint that the Police were slack in taking action against such miscreants. The second paragraph of the news item contains the reference to the Chhatra Mangal Samity, and roughly translated the paragraph stated that because the Students' Welfare Association reputed to have been organised by the Belghoria Congress was hobnobbing with the Police, many anti-social persons had obtained shelter and the real culprits were not being punished, and that this had caused much discontent in the locality. 2. AFTER the publication of this item there was a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Students' Welfare Association and the meeting authorised the Secretary of the Committee to launch a prosecution against the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the paper styled as Swadhinata for defamation of the Students' Welfare Association and the petition of complaint was filed by Radhika Ranjan Ghosal, Secretary of the Students' Welfare Association of Belghoria. The petitioner who is the Printer and Publisher of Swadhinata was summoned in due course. The defence taken was that the publication was a fair comment on the laxity of the Police administration in Belghoria, and that there was no intention to defame the Students' Welfare Association of Belghoria; that the publication did not in itself constitute defamation of the Students' Welfare Association, and that the association could not be defamed by such a publication suggesting hobnobbing of the Police and sheltering of a number of anti-social elements. The learned Magistrate however rejected the defence contentions and held, in view of explanation 2 to section 499 I. P. C. that an association of persons like the Belghoria Students' Welfare Association' could be defamed, and that the publication constituted an imputation on the character of the association because it directly suggested that the members were themselves anti-social elements or associated with anti-social elements whose activities were described in the first paragraph of the publication Accordingly the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner under sec. 500 I. P. C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 30/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days. Mr. Ajit Kumar Dutt appearing for the petitioner has again urged the two points taken in defence, namely, that the publication does not per se constitute defamation of the Students' Welfare Association and that an association cannot be defamed by such a comment as is contained in the relevant publication. 3. REFERENCE has already been made to the contents of the publication. The first paragraph refers to the anti-social activities being carried on almost openly in Belghoria and slackness of the Police in dealing with the miscreants. The second paragraph states that the Students' Welfare Association reputed to be organised by the Belghoria Congress is hobnobbing with the Police and thereby many anti-social persons are getting shelter and real culprits were not being punished. This allegation necessarily implies that the members of the association are themselves or are associated with anti-social persons as are carrying on activities described in the first paragraph of the complaint, and because the Students' Welfare Association is hobnobbing with the Police these persons, though antisocial persons, are not being proceeded against. 4. THIS suggestion that the members of the Students' Welfare Association are really anti-social persona or are in league with such persons who are obtaining shelter for their activities by hobnobbing with the Police certainly constitutes an attack on the reputation of the association and must be considered to per se defamatory It should be mentioned that the association has been carrying on a number of welfare activities in Belgharia. According to the evidence given in the case, it was founded by Bepin Behari Ganguly in 1945, and the association has been serving the public in various ways, e. g., by free distribution of milk by running a free primary school, a public library and a free outdoor medical unit and in May, 1957 the association was registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. The association has had some patronage from higher officers of the West Bengal Police and some of the exhibits show that Mr. H. N. Sarkar who was then the Inspector General of Police and other Police Officers were invited as guests to some of the functions of the Students' Welfare Association of Belgharia. This friendliness with the Police is not a reflection on the character of the association, nor is the statement as to hobnobbing with the Police any defamation; but the defamation consists in suggesting that the association which has be en carrying on the welfare activities already referred to is really a hot house of anti-social persons or goondas. Mr. Dutt has urged that in any case, for defamation of an association of persons, it is necessary that the defamation complained of must apply to all the members of the association equally, so that any individual member could say that the imputation was calculated to harm his reputation. Mr. Dutt has pointed out that it was only observed in the publication complained of, that many anti-social persons were getting shelter, and that it was not stated that the members of the Association were all anti-social persons. But if it is stated that on account of the hobnobbing between the members of the Police force and the members of the Students' Welfare Association, many anti-social persons are getting shelter, because the Police are not prosecuting them because of the intimacy growing out of such hobnobbing, practically the imputation affects all the members of the association, because any individual member of the association might be one of the many antisocial persons referred to. 5. MR. 5. MR. Dutt has next referred to explanation 4 of section 499 I.P.C. which runs as follows:- "no imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to believe that the body of that person is in a loathsome state or in a state generally considered as disgraceful." 6. AMONG the various ways in which an imputation may harm a person's reputation, Mr. Dutt has urged that when we are concerned with an association, the only clause applicable is an imputation lowering the credit of that person; and according to Mr. Dutt the ether clauses in Explanation 4 are not applicable. Mr. Dutt has urged that when we are concerned with an association of persons or company or a corporation the imputation must affect its reputation relating to its property or trade, and that apart from its property or trade an association has no character on which there may be imputation. In support of the contention, Mr. Dutt has referred to (1) Protap Chandra Guha Roy's case, 29 C. W. N. 904: 26, Criminal Law Journal 1539, at page 1545 where there are certain observations made by Chose, J. in relation to defamation of a company or corporation. It should be mentioned that in Protap Chandra Guha Roy's case (1) the accused was charged for defaming the Police force of Bengal. In dealing with the case Ghose, J. referred to Explanation 2 to section 499 I P. C. and proceeded to observe as follows :- "in my opinion those words mean that a collection of persons as such may be collectively defamed in the same manner as a 'company'. The general principles on which a company may be said to have been defamed would therefore apply equally to the case where it is alleged that a 'collection of persons as such' has been defamed. Those general principles were formulated by Chief Baron Pollock in Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co. v. Hawkins. where he said, 'it (a corporation) could not sue in respect of an imputation of murder, or incest, or adultery, because it could not commit those crimes. Those general principles were formulated by Chief Baron Pollock in Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co. v. Hawkins. where he said, 'it (a corporation) could not sue in respect of an imputation of murder, or incest, or adultery, because it could not commit those crimes. Nor could it sue in respect of a charge of corruption, for a corporation cannot be guilty of corruption, although the individuals composing it may. This was adopted in Mayor of Manchester v. Williams where it was laid down that a corporation may be sued for a libel affecting property, not for one affecting personal reputation." Mr. Dutt has also referred to certain observations in Dr. H. S. Gour's Penal Law of India, page 2360, 6th Edition wherein after referring to certain English cases, the following law is deduced in relation to defamation of a company or a corporation. "a corporation may maintain a prosecution or an action for a libel affecting its property but not for a libel merely affecting personal reputation, as a corporation has no reputation apart from its property or trade. The words complained of must reflect on the management of its business and must injuriously affect the corporation as distinct from the individuals who compose it. The alleged libel must attack the corporation in its method of conducting its affairs, must accuse it of fraud or mismanagement, or must attack its financial position. It cannot bring a prosecution for words which merely affect its honour or dignity." 7. IN connection with the above argument of Dutt, I should point out that the observations of Ghose, J. in Pratapchandra Guha's case cannot be accepted as laying down the law finally in respect of defamation of an association of persons as distinguished from a company or a corporation, because on this point there was a difference of opinion between Buckland, J. and B. B. Ghose, J., and the case was referred to a third Judge, Newbould, J. who decided that the statement of the accused that the members of the police force were beasts or pigs was defamatory to the complainant who was a member of the police force. Therefore, the proposition that in respect of an association of persons the law of defamation is the same as the English law of defamation relating to a trading company or corporation was not accepted. Therefore, the proposition that in respect of an association of persons the law of defamation is the same as the English law of defamation relating to a trading company or corporation was not accepted. It may be mentioned that in a subsequent case it was held that a publication where it was stated that the Hindu widows were treated as sluts at home and prostitutes abroad, would amount to defamation in view of the second clause in section 499, vide, Mahim Chandra's case (2) (1928) 55 Cal. 1280: 36 Cr. L. J. 816: 1935 All 743: In Wahid Ullah Ansari v. Emperor, (3) 36 Cr. L. J. 816 a decision of Allahabad High Court, it was held that certain articles published in a paper containing scandalous accusations against the girl students of a college implying that the girls were habitually guilty of misbehaviour, amounted to defamation, the essence of defamation being the publication of an imputation with the knowledge that it will harm the reputation of the person defamed. This case shows that defamation of an association or collection of persons could also be made by publication of an imputation affecting character or reputation. In view of these decisions it must be held that the contention of Mr. Dutt, that out of the various modes described in Explanation 4 in which imputation to harm a person's reputation may be made, only an imputation lowering the credit of the person is the mode in which there can be any defamation of an association, is not correct; and that an association may be defamed also by an imputation which lowers the moral character of the members of the association collectively. In the present case that is what was done by the publication relating to the Students' Welfare Association and therefore, I must agree with the learned Magistrate in holding that it amounted to defamation of the members of the association as an association and, therefore, the accused petitioner was rightly held guilty of the offence under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. MR. 8. MR. Dutt has finally urged that the 'swadhinata' is known to be a communist paper, and the news item complained of in the issue of 18th November 1957 was really a hit on the Congress administration of the police department of West Bengal, and the Students' Welfare Association was only incidentally referred to, and that the members of the Students' Welfare Association need not have taken notice of the slight slur made on the Association. However, that might be, since the case is before the Court, the Court has to consider whether the publication does amount to an imputation on the association or on the character of the association as such. If it is held that it does, then the petitioner cannot escape liability for the offence committed which is no doubt not of a very serious nature and the learned Magistrate recognised it by imposing a fine of Rs. 30/- only and there is no reason to interfere with that order. Accordingly, this Rule is discharged.