JUDGMENT S.B. SEN, J. 1. On 3.8.1952 in the issue of Indore Samachar a Hindi Daily having a large circulation in Indore, a news item under the caption "Sethaji Ka Mamala Police Ko" appeared. Purushottam Vijay is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the said Daily. 2. The plaintiff appellant Chhogalal alleges that he was running a business of Iron and Steel in the name of Jokhiram Kanhyalal and the news item that was published under the above caption was done in order to defame him. The item was deliberately published without any good faith maliciously in order to lower him in the estimation of the public. This has resulted in injuring his status in life as well as his business. It has also given him mental shock and pain. 3. The plaintiff further alleges that he had given the said Purushottam Vijay opportunity to make amends and apologise by a wire dated 3.8.1952 but it was of no avail. Again on 30.7.1953 he had demanded Rs. 26,000 as compensation for this libel. This was also refused. Under the above circumstances the plaintiff has brought the suit for damages on account of this deliberate libel. 4. The defendant Purushottam Vijay denied the status of the plaintiff and that he has been carrying on his business in the name of Jokhiram Kanhyalal. He denied that the news item was published in bad faith or maliciously or in deliberate suppression of the truth. The publication he asserted was in the usual course of business of news paper on receipt of the news from the reporters. There has been no defamation of the plaintiff by publishing the same. The defendant published the same knowing it to be true. The defendant further asserted that the news item that was published was true and it was for the good of the public and published in good faith. Other adverse allegations were also denied by the defendant. 5. In his special pleadings the defendant further submitted that the claim was barred by time. He also claimed compensatory costs for this false and frivolous claim. 6. The Additional District Judge Indore dismissed the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the allegation against the plaintiff was substantially true. No part of the news according to the trial Judge was found to be false or untrue. He also claimed compensatory costs for this false and frivolous claim. 6. The Additional District Judge Indore dismissed the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that the allegation against the plaintiff was substantially true. No part of the news according to the trial Judge was found to be false or untrue. He held that the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the plea of justification. The plaintiff has now come up in appeal 7. At the Bar the only point that was agitated is whether the news item was a libel or not. There was no other question raised by either counsel. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he does not claim any particular amount as compensation for the libel. He has come to the Court only to vindicate his honour. 8. Before we enter into the discussion we give below the translation of the impugned article which is Ex P/1. "Sethaji's Case to the Police" "There is a hot rumour that the Enforcement Branch is going to hand over the case of Seth Chhogalal Kanhyalal. Ex. President of the Indore Iron and Steel registered stock holders Association Ltd., to the Police in which there is a reported allegation that during his regime there was a shortage or Rs. 12,043/9/-. The Director of the Civil Supply Department has also issued a notice for freezing Rs. 25,000 shares of the Sethaji in the said Association and to withhold his share of the profit." 9. The words undoubtedly are defamatory. The publication clearly mentions that Sethaji is involved in a criminal case. Not only that the Civil Supply Department has frozen his share to the extent of Rs. 25,000 and has also issued orders withholding share of his profits. 10. In a defamation the plaintiff has to establish that the words are defamatory and that it has been published. The question therefore now remains is whether the defendant has any justification in publishing the above item. 11. Defamatory words are presumed to be false as man is presumed to be innocent and therefore the defendant has to rebut that presumption by giving evidence of justification. He has to show that the allegations are true. 12. The question therefore now remains is whether the defendant has any justification in publishing the above item. 11. Defamatory words are presumed to be false as man is presumed to be innocent and therefore the defendant has to rebut that presumption by giving evidence of justification. He has to show that the allegations are true. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following passage from Salmond on the law of Torts, 11th Edition, page 447, "When the defamatory statement is put forward by way of rumour or report only, it is not sufficient justification to prove that the rumour or report really existed; it is necessary to prove that it was true. For to give to it further currency is to suggest that it may be well founded and it is this suggestion that must be justified. On the same principle it is defamatory and actionable to publish of the plaintiff that he is suspected of some crime or other discreditable conduct and it is no defence to prove that such a suspicion actually existed. Were it not for this rule every man could escape the consequences of publishing libels and slenders by adopting the simple precaution of stating that as matters of rumour and suspicion, instead of as matters of fact." 13. The above observation is based on the following cases. In Watkins vs. Hall, (1868) LR QB 3 QB 396, it is held:- "Declaration, that the defendant has spoken of the plaintiff, who was Chairman of the South Eastern Railway Company and concerning a fall in the shares of the company, the words following "you have beard what has caused the fall. I mean, the rumour about the South Eastern Chairman having failed" meaning thereby that the defendant, being Chairman of the South Eastern Railway Company, had become embarrassed in his pecuniary affairs and had become and was insolvent. Plea, that the defendant meant and was understood by the by-standers to mean, that there had been and there was a rumour current on the Stock-exchange about the Chairman of the South Eastern Railway Company having railed and not that the plaintiff had become embarrassed and had become insolvent, as in the innundo alleged and that it was true that there had been and there was a rumour current on the stock exchange that the Chairman of the South Eastern Railway Company had failed. Held: The plea was no answer to the declaration, for that the existence of the rumour did not justify the repetition of the slander contained in it, without showing that the defendant believed it to be true and that he spoke the words on a justifiable occasions. Held also that if the latter part of the plea was rejected the plea could not be supported an amounting to the general issue, for that by the Common Law Procedure Act 1852, section 61, the plaintiff would succeed, if the words uttered by the defendant turned out actionable, although not used in the sense put upon them by the innundo." 14. In M'Pherson vs. Daniels (1829) 10 B & C 263, it has been held:- In an action for slander, for words spoken of the plaintiff in his trade, importing direct assertion made by defendant, that the plaintiff was insolvent, the defendant pleaded that one T.W. spoke and published to the defendant the same words and that the defendant, at the time of speaking and publishing them declared that he had heard and been told the same from and by the said T.W. Held upon demurrer, that this plea was bad, first, because it did not confess and avoid the charge mentioned in the declaration the words in the declaration importing an unqualified assertion made by the defendant in the words stated in the declaration and the words used in the plea importing that the defendant mentioned the fact on the authority of T.W. Secondly, because it did give the plaintiff any cause of action against T.W. in as much as it did not allege that T.W. spoke the words falsely and maliciously. Thirdly, because it is not an answer to an action for oral slander for a defendant to show that he heard it from another and named the person at the time, without showing that the defendant believed it to he true and that he spoke the words on a justifiable occassion. 15. There cannot be any quarrel about the above proposition. The defence in this case is not that there was a rumour but the defence is that what is rumoured is true. There cannot be any doubt that it will not be sufficient defence, if the defendant simply proves that there existed a rumour and that he has only published the rumour. The defence in this case is not that there was a rumour but the defence is that what is rumoured is true. There cannot be any doubt that it will not be sufficient defence, if the defendant simply proves that there existed a rumour and that he has only published the rumour. The plea of justification which he has taken does not consist of proving the existence of a rumour. He must as a matter of fact prove that what is rumoured is true. In fact the statement in Salmond on the law of Torts, on Page 445 is very pertinent. It reads as follows:- "No action will lie for the publication of defamatory statement if the defendant pleads and proves that it is true. For the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he either does not or ought not to possess. And that is so even though the defendant is proved have been actuated by malicious and improper motives." 16. It will be clear that even if there was malice, even if the news item was a result of enmity, if the defendant can establish that there was justification, he cannot be made liable for the defamatory statement. The law is the same in India as well as in England. 17. If a man has got character he can recover damages, if that is impaired he has no cause of action. Not only that, it is also desirable that persons who are responsible for anti-social work should be made known. This is undoubtedly a dangerous act and if the person who is responsible for disclosing the name of anti-social worker fails to show that there was justification he will be made liable both in civil and criminal Courts. 18. In Harbhajansingh vs. State of M.P. AIR 1961 Punjab 215, reliance has been placed on the following passage in Halsbury's Law of England Vol. 24, para 84, Page 47:- "Even if the speeches and the press news had expressly referred to the complainant and even if they had used the identical language, which had been indulged in by the appellant, the previous publication of similar imputation would have given to the accused no protection. 24, para 84, Page 47:- "Even if the speeches and the press news had expressly referred to the complainant and even if they had used the identical language, which had been indulged in by the appellant, the previous publication of similar imputation would have given to the accused no protection. The accused cannot justify the defamatory statement on the ground that similar reports had appeared or by saying that rumours to that effect were afloat." Though the above observations were in connection with a criminal case but the principle is the same. 19. In Sutherland vs. Stops, 1925 AC 47 on page 73 it has been observed:- "To make written language libellons or spoken language slanderous, it is fundamental and essential that they be of an concerning a person, be untrue in substance and in facts, and be defamatory in nature. There is no exception to these rules, whether the language be the language stating fact or stating opinion. When facts are stated they can be justified as being although defamatory and of and concerning the plaintiff yet true, when opinions are stated they can be justified on precisely the same grounds namely that although of concerning the plaintiff and defamatory, yet they also are true. In the next place, when in the course of the statement of defamatory matter both facts and opinions are set forth, it is upon similar principles open to a defendant to say that the entirety, both fact and opinion is true in substance and in fact. That was the present case. It was so pleaded and the trial was conducted by both parties upon the comprehensive defence. In everyone of these cases, if the truth of the libel is affirmed by the jury the case is at an end. There is no room for introducing fair comment or of preplexing the jury with the consideration of such a plea when the defendant has justified the truth of all he has said, whether in stating fact or expressing opinion. There are two qualifications which must be made upon this absolute rule. There is no room for introducing fair comment or of preplexing the jury with the consideration of such a plea when the defendant has justified the truth of all he has said, whether in stating fact or expressing opinion. There are two qualifications which must be made upon this absolute rule. In the first place, truth must not be stated without being fully stated that is to say without that context in the case of a libel and without those circumstances in the case of a slander, which would put a different complexion upon matter which is libellous or slanderous standing by itself and would possibly or probably destory altogether its character as such. In the second place, a statement of fact or of opinion which consists in the raking up of a long buried past may, without an explanation (and in cases which are conceivable, even with an explanation) be libellous or slanderous if written or uttered in such circumstances as to suggest that a taint upon character and conduct still subsists and that the plaintiff is accordingly help up in ridicule, reprobation and contempt. 20. In order to understand the defence it is necessary to refer to the documents which have also been relied on by the appellant to that whatever had happened during the period ending July 1950 during the period when he was a President of the Indore Iron and Steel Registered Stock Holders, Association. Ex. D/7 dated 28.6.1950 is a letter by the Superintendent Enforcement Branch Indore to the Director of the Civil Supplies alleging that Jokhiram Kanhyalal had sold some controlled corrugated sheets in black market. There is also allegation of infringement of the control order in not giving the declaration in time. There are also some other allegations. 21. Similarly Ex. D/17 is another letter by the same authority of the same date in which request has been made to the Director Civil Supplies to issue an order under Clause 10-A of the M.B. Iron Steel and Scrap (Production and Distribution) Control Order, 1949 directing the said Jokhiram Kanhyalal not to remove or permit the removal of any iron and steal whether sold or unsold from his stock or premises, except with the written permission of the Director. That order was also issued. 22. That order was also issued. 22. By letter D/11 dated 31.7.1950 the plaintiff requested the Director, Civil Supplies who had frozen his goods to allow him to sell. This letter no doubt as will appear from the subsequent order allowed him to sell uncontrolled goods but so far as controlled goods were concerned they were still under inquiry and he was further asked by Ex. D-12 to clarify certain allegations which were made against him regarding allotments. He was also charged for stocking some of the goods belonging to the Association in his own personal godown. 23. Ex. D/14 is a letter by the plaintiff addressed to the Director Civil Supplies in which the plaintiff tried to explain the position and circumstances. He also tried to make clarification about the goods that were kept in his godown 24. It will thus appear from the above letters that though the plaintiff was not a President after 24.7.1950 he could not clarify all the charges that were against him and the inquiries were going on. Therefore from the perusal of these letters it cannot be said that all inquiries were made and he was found to be innocent. 25. About the enquiry by the Enforcement Branch we have the statement of enforcement officer in this respect. D.W.2 Babulal Sharma was the Superintendent of the Enforcement Branch. He has stated that he made a report against Chhogalal Ex. D-17 to the Director, Civil Supplies and on his report the Director froze the goods. According to D/7 the Director also passed an order freezing his shares and for removal from presidentship. On his report there was also an audit by Auditors R.D. Joshi and Company. Investigation was made and in the course of investigation the plaintiff was questioned. As a result of that the F.I.R. was sent charging the plaintiff that he had sold controlled goods without permits and had also sold goods in black market. There were many other allegations against him. Ghatpande, Municipal Engineer had also made allegations against the plaintiff. 26. D.W. 3 Shri Sawant was the Director of the Civil Supplies. He has stated that there was a report of shortage of stocks. There were investigations and the matter was entrusted to the Enforcement Branch of the Police and the Enforcement Branch then made a report to the police for taking necessary action. 27. 26. D.W. 3 Shri Sawant was the Director of the Civil Supplies. He has stated that there was a report of shortage of stocks. There were investigations and the matter was entrusted to the Enforcement Branch of the Police and the Enforcement Branch then made a report to the police for taking necessary action. 27. We thus see that there was an inquiry and there was a case under investigation and there was also the F.I.R. Report made by the Enforcement Branch to the Police. The impugned article published in Indore Samachar contained the following parts:- (1) There is a hot rumour that the Enforcement Branch is going to and over the case of Seth Chhogalal Kanhyalal Ex. President of the Indore Iron and Steal Registered Stock Holders Association Ltd. to the Police. (2) There is a reported allegation that during his regime there was a shortage of Rs. 12,043/9/-. (3) The Director of Civil Supplies has also issued a notice for freezing of 25,000 shares of the Sethji in the said association and to withhold his share of the profit. 28. First and second part says that there is a rumour. From the evidence of the Enforcement Officer it is clear that the first part is a fact and there has been a report against Chhogalal Kanhyalal on account of certain shortages during his regime as a President of the Indore Iron and Steal Registered Stock Holders Association. 29. Regarding third part, Mr. Sawant, Director has vouchsafed that there had been a freezing of his shares. It is therefore clear that whatever was published was true. 30. An objection was taken regarding the use of the word "hot" (Garam) indicating that it was a flesh news whereas the learned counsel for the appellant contends that it was not fresh. It was pertaining to 1950 whereas the news published in 1952. A careful scrutiny of the facts would indicate that so far as public is concerned the rumour was hot even when the matter was published. Though the Enforcement Officer has not been asked about the exact date when the matter was handed over to the police, yet even on the date he gave evidence the matter was pending. It is clear even from the evidence of the plaintiff's witness P.W. 2 Shankar Joshi who has stated that the police inquiry was still going on. 31. Though the Enforcement Officer has not been asked about the exact date when the matter was handed over to the police, yet even on the date he gave evidence the matter was pending. It is clear even from the evidence of the plaintiff's witness P.W. 2 Shankar Joshi who has stated that the police inquiry was still going on. 31. The plaintiff has stated on oath that no case of his has been forwarded by the Enforcement Branch to the Police. He however admitted that some inquiry was made by the Enforcement Branch in 1950. That was under Sections 8 and 11 of Iron Control Order for non-submission of the returns. He averred that he was acquitted of that. He has also stated that there has been no case of the amount of Rs. 12,043/9. He also says that in this connection the Enforcement Branch has not submitted any case to the police. 32. But different story has been given by D.W.2 Babulal Sharma, the Enforcement Branch Officer who was himself dealing with the case and had sent the F.G. Report after making investigation. In fact the accounts were ordered to be audited and after that the investigation went on. 33. In cross-examination plaintiff Chhogalal has admitted with reference to his previous statement Ex. D-l that there was a case handed over to the police by the Enforcement Branch regarding the shortage and he was not in a position to say how far the matter proceeded and what was the stage of that case. He had also to admit that Rs. 25,000 in shares were frozen. He also admits that he did not receive any dividend for the shares. The dividend was not given on account of an order from the Civil Supply Department. He also admitted the report of Mr. Joshi which indicated that there was a shortage of Rs. 12,043/9. He also admitted that the shares were frozen and goods were sealed and they were released only when the High Court passed an order in 1956. 34. We need not detail what he has stated. But it is clear from his statement that there was a case against him. His shares were frozen, his stock was also frozen. He was not given dividend on account of enquiry regarding shortage of stock. 34. We need not detail what he has stated. But it is clear from his statement that there was a case against him. His shares were frozen, his stock was also frozen. He was not given dividend on account of enquiry regarding shortage of stock. The only point he tried to make out was that these calamities occurred long before this article was published. We have already seen that even on the date of evidence the, matter was incomplete. Joshi's report was in 1951 and after that the Enforcement Officer handed over the matter to the police. The news was fresh when the matters were published in the paper. 35. The black marketing and corruption have become common and it is the duty of every body to put a stop to the same and the Press has to bring to the notice of the public the cases of such black marketing. It is true that the news paper should know what it publishes is the factual information. The defendant has not stated that the plaintiff is a black marketer. He published that there is a report when the plaintiff was a President of the Stock Holders that on account of shortage of Rs. 12,043/9 shares of the Sethji were frozen. It is true that there was a report. It is true that shares were frozen. It is also true that cases were banded over to the police. Therefore there was justification to what bas been published. 36. We therefore do not see that the judgment of the Court below in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff is in any way wrong. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. Counsel fee according to scale, if certified.