JUDGMENT Hari Swarup, J. - Ram Subhag Pandey and Ram Shanker Gupta have filed this appeal against the order of the Civil and Sessions Judge Kanpur by which Ram Subhaag Pandey was convicted under Section 500, I.P.C. and sentenced to six months, simple imprisonment and Ram Shanker Gupta was convicted under Section 501, I.P.C. and sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment. 2. The public prosecutor filed a complaint in the court of sessions, on the basis of a sanction obtained from the State Government, against the appellants, alleging that a pamphlet styled "Mananeeya Mukhamantri Uttar Pradesh ke nam Dwitiya Khula Patra" written by appellant Ram Subhag Pandey and printed by appellant Ram Shanker Gupta contained matters which were defamatory of Dr. A.K. Sanyal, District Medical Officer of Health, Kanpur. 3. The prosecution in support of its case examined Dr. A.K. Sanyal to prove that the allegations made in the pamphlet were not true. It examined Dr. R.L. Jain, Dr. B.K. Sharma, Durg Vijai Singh and Ram Asre Pandey to prove that by the pamphlet Dr. Sanyal had been defamed. 4. The defence of appellant Ram Subhag Pandey was that the allegation were true and it was for public good that the imputations were made and published. He also pleaded that the opinions expressed by him were in good faith and could not be deemed defamatory within the meaning of Section 499, I.P.C. Ram Shanker Gupta pleaded that he printed the matter without knowing or having reason to believe that the matter was defamatory. The defence relied on exceptions-first, second, eighth and ninth-and also produced a number of witnesses to establish that the imputations made were true and were made in good faith. The trial court came to the conclusion that the matter complained of was defamatory and the accused were not protected by any of the exceptions given in Section 499, I.P.C. and hence convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt against the accused and the case had not been proved beyond doubt so as to justify the conviction. He also urged that the sanction for filing the complaint in the present case was not valid. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt against the accused and the case had not been proved beyond doubt so as to justify the conviction. He also urged that the sanction for filing the complaint in the present case was not valid. As the prosecution has not succeeded in proving beyond doubt the case against either of the two accused on merits, it is not necessary to go into the question of validity or otherwise of the sanction. 6. The error in which the trial court fell was that it expected a much higher degree of proof from the accused for bringing the case within the exceptions contained in Section 499, I.P.C. than the law required. It also erred in not giving full weight to the terms of Explanation 4 to Section 499, I.P.C. 7. It is no doubt true that by Sec .105 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the exceptions contained in Section 499, I.P.C. is upon the accused and the court starts with the presumption about the absence of such circumstances, but the burden is not as heavy as is required for positive proof an event or fact. The degree of proof is not as high as is required of the prosecution. It is well established that wherever the burden of proving anything is on the accused, the burden is less than what is required when the burden is on the prosecution. The degree of proof is not as high as is required of the prosecution. It is well established that wherever the burden of proving anything is on the accused, the burden is less than what is required when the burden is on the prosecution. As observed in "R. v. Carr-Briant, 1943, 2 All E.R. 156." "In any case where either by statute or at common law, some matter is presumed against an accused `unless the contrary is proved' the jury should be directed that it is for them to decide whether the contrary is proved, that the burden of proof required is less than that required at the hands of the prosecution in proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt and that the burden may be discharged by evidence satisfying the jury of the probability of that which the accused is called upon to establish." Viscount Sankey in the case of "Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecution, 1935 A.C. 462" observed, "But while the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner, there is no such burden laid on the prisoner to prove his innocence and it is sufficient for him to raise a doubt to his guilt." What Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act requires is that the accused should introduce such evidence as may displace the presumption of the absence of circumstances for bringing his case within an exception and may thereby satisfy the Court that such circumstances may have existed. As held in the case of R.K. Singh v. State, 1969 A.L.J. 657, an accused person is entitled to be acquitted if upon a consideration of the evidence as a whole (including the evidence given in support of the pleas of general exception) a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the Court about the guilt of the accused. 8. Explanation 4 to Section 499, I.P.C. places a curb on the general description of definition contained in the section. It makes only such imputations punishable as might lower a persons' reputation in respect of some aspects of his personality. Keeping into view the scope of Section 499, I.P.C. along with its Explanation 4 and the extent of accused's liability for bringing his case within the ambit of the first and second Exceptions to the section, it has to be seen if the accused had defamed Dr. Sanyal by making imputations contained in the exhibited passages. Keeping into view the scope of Section 499, I.P.C. along with its Explanation 4 and the extent of accused's liability for bringing his case within the ambit of the first and second Exceptions to the section, it has to be seen if the accused had defamed Dr. Sanyal by making imputations contained in the exhibited passages. As the complaint was filed not by Dr. Sanyal but by the public prosecutor under Sec. 198-B. Cr. P. C., the prosecution had to prove that a public servant had been defamed in respect of his conduct in the discharge of public functions. Read with Explanation 4 to Section 499, the imputations, to be defamatory, had to be proved by the prosecution to be such as may have directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowered the moral or intellectual character of the officer in respect of his conduct as public officer. 9. There are nine passages in the pamphlet in respect of which the complaint was lodged and which were exhibited in the case. I now proceed to consider each item in the light of the above observations. The first passage is as follows :- "Kintu Sri Sanyal ko issue kya. we apna kosh dekhen ya rajya sarkar ka kosh aur janta ka hit." This passage, bereft of the preceding passages which have not been exhibited, cannot be held to be defamatory as it refers to no facts. By this passage, even if it is read along with the context. Dr. Sanyal could not have fallen in the estimation of any reasonable person who read it as the allegation was too general and a reasonable person must draw inferences about the character of others on the basis of facts and not vague suggestions. The imputation could, thus hardly be regarded as defamatory in view of Explanation 4 to Section 499, I.P.C. The second passage is : "Is prakar Bharat prasidh mele ko upekshit rakhkar, rajya sarkar ko dhoka dekar, Sri Sanyal ne dukandaron ko puri swatantrata dekar pratyek se kuchh nischit mudraye le li hongi. Kya is prakar rajya kosh ke sthan par apni niji kosh ki vridhi na ki hogi ? Kya is prakar swantara khadya wastuon ke bikne par apna pratibandh hatakar vibhinn bimariyon ke prasaran me janta janardan ka ahit na kiya hoga ? Kya is prakar rajya kosh ke sthan par apni niji kosh ki vridhi na ki hogi ? Kya is prakar swantara khadya wastuon ke bikne par apna pratibandh hatakar vibhinn bimariyon ke prasaran me janta janardan ka ahit na kiya hoga ? Kya un bimariyon se grast mritak vyactiyon ke akasmik nidhan ke hatya ka vikral bojh bhi Sanyal par na hoga? Kya Sri Sanyal ki varshik ay badliti hi rahegi ?" Although this passage, too, without reference to the context does not lead the reader very far, but the allegations certainly suggest taking of illegal gratification by Dr. Sanyal for lifting the control over the sale of foodstuffs. It implies that Dr. Sanyal had given a free hand to the sellers of foodstuffs at the Makanpur cattle fair which may have caused illness to the consumers, and that he may have taken monetary consideration for doing it, from the vendor. Dr. Sanyal, the affected person himself, is the solitary witness to support the Prosecution case that the allegations and imputations were untrue. He, however, admitted that in this fair no sample of good products was ever taken for test. He also admitted that only thirty or forty licences for the sale of articles were issued for the said fair and that during his term of office not a single vendor was prosecuted for selling adulterated or rotten food. On the other hand, the accused examined two witnesses to show that a very large number of vendors used to sell food products in the fair during 1966, 1967 end 1968. D.W. 1, Ambika Prasad, stated that there were in the fair at least 100 to 150 shops and 200 to 250 Khonchas where food products were sold. He went to the extent of saying that Dr. Sanyal had extorted Rs. 5 per head from the vendors and had permitted them to sell the goods without their having a licence. He stated that he had himself given the said amount and had sold the goods without any licence. D. W. 2, Ram Asrey, stated that in 1966, 1967 and 1968 the shops were in the range of thousands and in many of them rotten food was sold. Defence witness Ambika Prasad had further stated that Ram Subhag Pandey had made enquiries from a number of shopkeepers and vendors about their difficulties and Ambika Prasad had told him that Rs. Defence witness Ambika Prasad had further stated that Ram Subhag Pandey had made enquiries from a number of shopkeepers and vendors about their difficulties and Ambika Prasad had told him that Rs. 5 had been taken from him by Dr. Sanyal but neither any receipt nor any licence had been issued to him The prosecution has produced no evidence to show that only thirty or forty food product stalls were there in the fair or that there were no stalls where food products were sold without a licence. In view of the defence evidence it is not possible to hold that the accused have failed in proving that the imputation was true at least in regard to non-imposition of regulatory control over the sale of food products in the fair. As the first accused had made enquiries into the matter and was told about acceptance of illegal gratification, his imputation cannot be held not to be made in good faith and the case will be covered by the first as well as the second exception to Sec. 499. I.P.C. as the making of imputation if true, could only be for public good. The third item exhibited is : "Gat mah June, 1967 men pad ke mad men madandh Sri Sanyal ne 15 swasthya nirikshakon ko janpad ke antargat hee idhar-udhar vibhinn Vikas kshetron men sthanantrait kar diya. Is sthanantaran se rajakiya sarkar ko lagbhag 3000 rupaye vyay karna pada." Firstly, this statement is not per se defamatory. The only allegation is that certain transfers were made and the State Government had to incur expenses on that account. Dr. Sanyal had admitted in his statement that,before June 1967 he had transferred seven or eight Sanitary Inspectors. This imputation too cannot therefore be said to be false. The opinion of the author in this respect about the expenditure incurred by the State Government cannot in the circumstances of the case be deemed to be made either in bad faith or not for public good. The fourth item exhibited is as follows: "Parantu Sri Sanyal to isi baat per tuley hain ki Samvid sarkar ka kisi bhi prakar hit na ho. Kya yah arashtriyata ya gaddari ka prateek nahin hai?" Bereft of the context, this statement contains nothing except that Dr. Sanyal was acting in a manner which was not in the best interests of the S. V. D. government. Kya yah arashtriyata ya gaddari ka prateek nahin hai?" Bereft of the context, this statement contains nothing except that Dr. Sanyal was acting in a manner which was not in the best interests of the S. V. D. government. Whether a particular Government gets an advantage or not cannot be deemed to be such an allegation which might lower Dr. Sanyal in the estimation of reasonable persons as it does not cast any stigma on his character. The fifth item is as follows: "Swasthya vibhag se bheji gai chechak unmulan prachar vahan ka prayog prachar men na karke swayam Kshetron ke dauron ke upyog men latey hain. Kya Sundar marg hai-daura hua, bhatta bana, petrol prachar se sambandhit raha -aur Sri Sanyal ki panchon ungliyan ghee men rahin." Dr. Sanyal has not completely denied the imputation. He rather admitted that he went on the publicity van a number of times for the purpose of propagating the pox-eradication scheme and that if in the way he had some other official work to do, he did that also. He has further stated that apart from these purposes he never used or misused the vehicle. The crux of the imputation was that although the vehicle and petrol was supplied by the Government for publicity purposes, it was utilised for tours and allowance was charged by the officer. But Dr. Sanyal did not specifically deny the charging of travelling allowance for these tours made in the course of publicity drive. Defence has examined Ram Lotan, d. w. 4, in connection with this imputation. He has deposed that he was the driver of the publicity van of the department when Dr. Sanyal was the D.M.O.H., Kanpur, and that he also used to travel in it. He went further to state that Dr. Sanyal had directed him to put ten litres of petrol in his private car every time he (Ram Lotan) got filled the tank of publicity van which Ram Lotan refused to do. This allegation may be true or false, but the fact remain that the prosecution has failed to refute the imputation that travelling allowance was charged when not due, and the defence did prove that Dr. Sanyal used to travel in the van. This allegation may be true or false, but the fact remain that the prosecution has failed to refute the imputation that travelling allowance was charged when not due, and the defence did prove that Dr. Sanyal used to travel in the van. The making of these allegations could be in public good and the opinion expressed or the inference drawn by the author of the pamphlet must, in face of defence evidence, be deemed to be in good faith. The sixth item is as follows : "Kya Sri Sanyal spastikaran denge ki unhone uprokt karya ke liye diya gaya dhan kahan aur kaise vyay kiya aur swasthya nirikshakon ke karya men unhe unka gangaman no dekar adulteration ke karya men chhip kar pichhe se bhala kyon mara? Karan spast hai ki yadi gangamen ratha to swasthya nirixako atyadhik chalan karta, jisse abhiyukton par mukadma chalta aur usse wasul hua dhan rajakiya kosh men pahunchata, prantu Sri Sanyal bhala yah kaise pasand karen . We to chahte hain ki jitna bhi adhik we Samvid sarkar ko arthik hani de saken utna hi unka gantavya adhikadhik nikat ata jayega. kya Sri Sanyal ka yah karya asahyog ewam dhuratata ka parshayak nahin hai?" This imputation contains a statements of fact that gangmen had not been supplied to Health Inspectors and on that account the work of inspectors had suffered as there could be no prosecution of or imposition of penalty on such vendors as might be selling adulterated or rotton foodstuff. On the basis of this fact the opinion has been expressed by the author that the aim was to cause loss to the government. The gangmen of the imputation has been admitted by Dr. Sanyal. He admitted that gangmen had not been supplied and has also admitted that if gangmen had been employed it would have been better. Considering this evidence in the light of other parts of his statement to the effect that no samples were taken in the fair and no one was prosecuted, it is apparent that public interest suffered as a result of non-employment of gangmen. The imputation cannot, therefore, be said to be either untrue or made in bad faith. It is the allegation of fact that can affect the opinion of a reasonable man and not the reason which the author may suggest for the officer's dereliction of duty. The imputation cannot, therefore, be said to be either untrue or made in bad faith. It is the allegation of fact that can affect the opinion of a reasonable man and not the reason which the author may suggest for the officer's dereliction of duty. If the substantive imputation is correct and made for public good the case will be covered by the first Exception to Section 499, I. P.C. The seventh item is as follows : "Ek deen heen vaccinator kyon Dr. Sanyal ki vakradristi ka kendra ban gaya hai, ise to Sri Sanyal hi vishesh samajhte hain. Isliye na woh unke aiashtriya karhon ko sahyog dekar inki udarpurti karne me rashtrapriyata ke adhar ka sambal lekar prastut nahin hai." On this point, the defence examined the vaccinator concerned, Baburam, d. w. 3. He stated that he was transferred and then he made a representation against it. He further stated that a bribe was demanded from him for favourable consideration of his case and on his not complying with the demand the representation was rejected. He also stated that he complained about Dr. Sanyal's demanding bribe from him to Sri Prabhu Narain, the then Minister for the Health Department and he also filed an application before the Commissioner. It appears that the services of Baburam were subsequently terminated and he thereupon filed a suit for reinstatement. Whether the evidence of victimisation and demand of bribe by Dr. Sanyal is quite true or not, if the accused had come to know of these facts from Baburam his imputation cannot be said not to have been made in good faith. The eighth item runs as follows: "Jahantak mera vishwas hai, Dr. Sanyal se paisa thugne tatha sunder Pralobhan ewam mrig marichika ka jal dikhane ke liye Sri B.B. Lal apne ko Adhyaksh batay aur Dr. Sanyal se manmani rakam ainth lee. Khair yah bhi sunder hi raha ki ek thug ne dusre thug ko thug liya." This allegation is parimarily against Sri B. B. Lal, who posed himself to be the President, U.P. Non-gazetted Officials Association. Sri B. B. Lal had written something which according to the accused was not correct. His imputation is that the statement was published by B.B. Lal at the behest of Dr. Sanyal who must have paid some money to B.B. Lal for this service. Dr. Sri B. B. Lal had written something which according to the accused was not correct. His imputation is that the statement was published by B.B. Lal at the behest of Dr. Sanyal who must have paid some money to B.B. Lal for this service. Dr. Sanyal has denied this allegation and also the acquaintance with B. B. Lal. Dr. Sanyal has been referred to in this passage as a "thug". This imputation is however too vague. It is not a statement of fact or any action of Dr. Sanyal in discharge of his public functions. The making of a vague suggestion like the present, could not have brought down the reputation of the officer concerned. The use of the word `thug' in respect of Dr. Sanyal without assigning any particular act to him can hardly be sufficient to make Dr. Sanyal fell in the estimation of reasonable persons. This imputation cannot, therefore be sufficient to hold the appellants guilty under Section 500 or 501, I.P.C. The last item runs as follows : "Ek nahin, yadi anekon B.B. Lal vibhinn prakashano ke madhyam se Dr. Sanyal ke Kukrityon par parda dalne ki asaphal chesta karke nyay ka gala nahin ghont sakte." In this allegation also, the main imputation is against B.B. Lal and no account was given of the alleged misdeeds of Dr. Sanyal which were sought to be covered up by B.B. Lal. B.B. Lal is not the complainant here. In the absence of specific evidence to show that this passage had lowered Dr. Sanyal in the estimation of the people, it would be difficult to hold that such a vague allegation about Dr. Sanyal could cause his defamation as a public servant. 10. Besides the items having not been specifically proved to be defamatory in the sense that they are either par se defamatory when read in the light of Explanation 4 to Section 499 or are not covered by the first or second exceptions to Section 499, I.P.C., there is also no evidence to establish that the exhibited passages contained such imputations by reading of which Dr. Sanyal's reputation could have lowered in the estimation of reasonable persons or was in fact lowered in the estimation of such persons. Explanation 4 to Sec. 499. I.P.C. makes an imputation defamatory only if it lowers a person in the estimation of others. It implies a fall in reputation. Sanyal's reputation could have lowered in the estimation of reasonable persons or was in fact lowered in the estimation of such persons. Explanation 4 to Sec. 499. I.P.C. makes an imputation defamatory only if it lowers a person in the estimation of others. It implies a fall in reputation. A person who stands not high in the estimation of others may not get a fall if the imputation be such as may not bring his reputation to a level below the one he enjoys. To put in the words of wigmore : "the meat (?) of the argument is that a person should not be paid for the loss of that which he never had." It may be possible to make presumption of good name and reputation of a plaintiff in a civil case if he claims damages for loss of reputation on being defamed by the defendant, as in such a case the defendant can by virtue of Section 55 of the Evidence Act prove that the plaintiff never enjoyed good reputation and was entitled to no damages. But the normal presumption of good reputation must be deemed to fade into insignificance in the light of the much stronger presumption of innocence of the accused where he is charged of a criminal offence under Section 500 or 501, I.P.C. If the prosecution asserts that by some act of the accused the reputation of a public servant had been lowered then it must establish that the public servant enjoyed a reputation which had been sullied. The existence of good reputation and fall thereof must be factually proved by the prosecution, both by reason of Section 101, Evidence Act and the general principle of criminal law that the burden of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt never changes and always rests on the prosecution. Thus the prosecution must prove that the officer enjoyed a reputation which could and had fallen by the imputation. It must further allege and specify the field in which his reputation had fallen or could fall in the eye of the reasonable man. The fields have been enumerated in Explanation 4 to Section 499, I.P.C. and for purposes of Section 500 an imputation which does not refer to any of such fields cannot be regarded as defamatory. It must further allege and specify the field in which his reputation had fallen or could fall in the eye of the reasonable man. The fields have been enumerated in Explanation 4 to Section 499, I.P.C. and for purposes of Section 500 an imputation which does not refer to any of such fields cannot be regarded as defamatory. The prosecution must, therefore, specifically establish that a particular aspect of the officer's reputation has or could fall by the complained imputations. 11. The evidence of Dr. Sanyal himself in this respect is hardly of any value. Durg Vijai Singh, P.W. 7, stated that : "Isko maine padha to padhkar mujhe Dr. Sanyal ke prati ashraddha utpann hui." He did not state however that Dr. Sanyal was held by him in great esteem or that the imputations directly or indirectly in his estimation lowered the moral or intellectual character of Dr. Sanyal. Similar is the case with the prosecution witnesses, Ram Asrey and Ram Ram Asrey Pandey. Unless there is evidence about how the person's reputation stood before the imputation was made, it cannot be held that it was lowered by a particular imputation. The witnesses who had stated about the lowering of Dr. Sanyal's reputation are Dr. Balkrishna Sharma and Guru Narain. Both of them are highly interested and partisan witnesses. They stated that after reading these allegations Dr. Sanyal had fallen in their esteem. Dr. Jain, P. W. 2, stated that he know Dr. Sanyal from his boyhood when they were class-fellows. Similarly, Dr. Sharma know Dr. Sanyal for the last twenty years and they too were class-fellows and there were personal relations between them. He stated that when he discussed about the pamphlet with Dr. Sanyal the latter said that all the allegations made therein were false and baseless and he had written about it to the Director of Health Services. He gave no reason for disbelieving Dr. Sanyal. The evidence of interested witnesses or of subordinates of Dr. Sanyal can hardly be sufficient to prove that the imputations were such which could lower the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of reasonable men. No independent witness about the reputation of Dr. Sanyal as it existed prior to the imputation or as it became after the publication thereof has been produced. 12. Sanyal can hardly be sufficient to prove that the imputations were such which could lower the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of reasonable men. No independent witness about the reputation of Dr. Sanyal as it existed prior to the imputation or as it became after the publication thereof has been produced. 12. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated as to which of the passages in the pamphlet were considered by him to be defamatory. They have not even stated that the passages marked as exhibits were defamatory. The evidence is too vague and does not relate specifically to the imputations for which the accused were charged. The prosecution witnesses are also silent about the aspect of Dr. Sanyal's reputation which may have fallen by the disputed passages. The prosecution has thus failed to prove by evidence that any of the exhibited passages was capable of lowering the reputation of Dr. Sanyal in the estimation of others or that the allegations in any of the exhibited passages had in fact lowered the reputation. 13. The pith and substance of the imputation was that Dr. Sanyal was guilty of dereliction of duty and the same was motivated by illegal gratification. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the public servant enjoyed a reputation for efficiency and integrity and the same was lowered in the estimation of others by the publication of the exhibited passages. 14. In the case of "Sutherland v. Stoppes, 1925 A.C. 47", it was pointed out that on the plea of justification it is not necessary to prove that the statement is literally true. It is sufficient if it is true in substance and if the essence of the imputation is true. In the present case the accused have succeeded in bringing forth circumstances sufficient for the inference that the imputations contained in the exhibited portions of the pamphlet may in substance and essence be true and may have been made for public good. In view of the circumstance that the author-accused is a public worker and an officer-bearer of a society and had made enquiries into the matter from effected persons, the making of imputation can also be deemed to be made in good faith. The accused will therefore be protected by the first two exceptions of Section 499, I.P.C and entitled to benefit of doubt. 15. The accused will therefore be protected by the first two exceptions of Section 499, I.P.C and entitled to benefit of doubt. 15. As regard the printer, R. S. Gupta, there is no evidence on record to make untenable his plea that he had printed the matter without knowing or having reason to believe that such matter was defamatory. He is entitled to acquittal on this ground also. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentences of the appellants are set aside, and they are acquitted of the charge. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are discharged and they need not surrender.