ORDER: In February, 1981 there was a strike of the College Teachers. Later, it was withdrawn. It appears that the Government had interdicted payment of salary for the strike period to those who had participated in the strike. 2. On 10.6.1981, the Calicut edition of ‘Malayala Manorama’ published a news item, emanating from its Trivandrum reporter, captioned: “They pocketed the salary withheld by the Government”. The report was induitably not complimentary to those connected with the strike. It was clearly stated in the report that most of the Government College Teachers abused their position as ‘drawing officers’ and thus received the salary and allowances which had been withheld by the Government. The Association of Government College Teachers through its General Secretary contradicted the report. He asserted that neither the office bearers nor the active workers of the organisation had received salary in the manner suggested. This report was published in the same paper on the 14th of June, 1981. 3. The dent of the report caused to the reputation of the organisation and its office bearers was seriously viewed by these. The publication of the clarificatory statement of the Association in the paper did not satisfy the General Secretary of the organisation. He therefore filed on 7.11.1981 a complaint, C.C.No.228 of 1981 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate No.1, Tellicherry. The complaint was described as “T.V. Balan, General Secretary, Association of Kerala Government College Teachers”. The Chief Editor, Staff Reporter and Printer of the paper were arrayed as the accused. The complaint was presented under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It averred that the accused had committed offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and prayed that summons be issued to the accused and that the accused be dealt with according to law. 4. On service of summons, the accused appeared before the Magistrate Court. They were released on bail. Ultimately, the case stood posted to 14.10.1982 for evidence. 5. Facing a criminal trial is not a pleasant pastime. In rare cases, when factual situation and legal position are so clear, relief from an unwarranted harassment arising out of a criminal trial can be granted by the High Court. The accused felt that the present case was one such. 6. Ultimately, the case stood posted to 14.10.1982 for evidence. 5. Facing a criminal trial is not a pleasant pastime. In rare cases, when factual situation and legal position are so clear, relief from an unwarranted harassment arising out of a criminal trial can be granted by the High Court. The accused felt that the present case was one such. 6. Three of the accused-accused 1, 3 and 4 filed the above criminal miscellaneous case on 11.10.1982, invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and praying that the complaint and proceedings pursuant there to be quashed. 7. The petition was entertained by this Court on 12.10.1982. Further proceedings were stayed. The respondent-complainant who entered appearance in the case in due course, strongly opposed the petition. It was contended on his behalf that the case is not one where the accused should be permitted to have an easy escape through a side walk as it were, The case is one where the accused had to face the trial, according to him. 8. The offending report was read over and over again by counsel appearing on both sides. On behalf of the respondent, particular stress was made on portions which had been specifically referred to in the complaint, the exerpts of which had been extracted therein. The report, according to the complainant, did make out a case which should go to the trial. 9. The serious and difficult question is whether the case should necessarily go to the trial. 10. It is desirable at the outset that reference is made to the passages in the report complained of as offending the accused. They are: (1) The title of the report already referred to above. (2) A sentence which reads: “And some leaders of the Government College Teachers Organisations who had staged the strike had not hesitated to receive the underserved salary and allowances.” and (3) A statement reading: “Emoluments went down the drain as regards those teachers in private colleges and the junior lecturers in the Government College themselves, who had entered the strike trusting the leaders; for they are not entitled to draw the salary direct from the treasury, by writing (the bill) direct”. 11. The grievance of the complainant in particular is: “The report was baseless, malicious and published with an intention to defame the Association and the complainant in particular”. 11. The grievance of the complainant in particular is: “The report was baseless, malicious and published with an intention to defame the Association and the complainant in particular”. The motive of creating a discontent among the association members was attributed to the accused. According to him, the report created an impression that the; association members and its leaders misappropriated government money by misusing their authority. The complainant claimed that he and other leaders of the Association had been held in high esteem by the people, that the reputation had been eroded considerably as a result of the publication of the offending report, and that there was even “exodus from the members of the Association”. The complainant also felt that “the reputation of its leaders touched rock bottom”. 12. As regards passages 1 and 3 extracted above, no case could be made out for action under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Receiving salary withheld by the Government could be by adopting legal, normal or permissible ways. A statement that they had received the salary withheld by the Government would not therefore be an offensive one. A statement that the teachers of private colleges or junior lecturers could not receive salary direct from the treasury is also not a defamatory one. The consequent disability of such persons; to draw salary from the treasury would be equally unobjectionable. 13. The complainant therefore rightly concentrated in emphasising the defamatory character of statement No.2 above. An allegation that the leaders of an organisation received underserved salary and allowances may prima facie disclose an offence. If that be so, the powers under Section 482 should not be invoked to stay the trial, contended the complainant. 14. On behalf of the accused, it was submitted that the complaint has to be quashed, as it failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That provision, which specially deals with prosecution for defamation, interdicts the Court from taking cognisance of offence under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (which deals with offence of “defamation7#x201D;#x0029; except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. (Emphasis Supplied) In the present case, the complainant is not a person aggrieved by the offence - was the argument urged on behalf of the petitioners-accused. 15. The general principles applicable to a situation like the present one are no longer abscure. (Emphasis Supplied) In the present case, the complainant is not a person aggrieved by the offence - was the argument urged on behalf of the petitioners-accused. 15. The general principles applicable to a situation like the present one are no longer abscure. The decisions of the Supreme Court have sufficiently illumined the path. One of the early decisions Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of U.P. Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of U.P. (1966) MLJ. (Crl.) 222;(1965) 2 S.C.R. 823:A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1451That case, as also the English decisions were reviewed in the later case, G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa. G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa. (1972) 2 S.C.J. 596:(1972) 2 MLJ. (S.C.) 61:(1972) 2 An.W.R. (S.C.) 61:7#x0028;1972) MLJ. (Crl.) 795:(1973) Crl.L.J. 52:A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2609 16. Some of the earlier decisions may also furnish an interesting background about judicial reaction to different situations of grievances relating to defamation. Eastwood v. Holmes Eastwood v. Holmes 175 Eng.Rep.758 concerned a case where action was initiated against the British Archaelogical Association. A report of the proceedings of that Association had referred to certain antiquities as “recent fabrication”. The Court held that action could not be maintained. The observations of Wills, J., very frequently by quoted in subsequent decisions read: “If a man wrote that all lawyers were thieves, no particular lawyer could sue him unless there is something to point to the particular individual, Those observations were approved by Holmes and Cherry L. 33as laying down sound law. “ D. Brien v. Ason D. Brien v. Ason (1913( 47 Ir. Lt.2527#x0029;. 17. The Indian Planters of West Bengal, who felt deframned as a clase, initiated action leading to what is referred as ‘Nil Darpen’ defamation case. Mayne's Criminal Law of India, 4th Edition, refers to that case at page 863. The complaint was entertained in that case from particular individuals of Indigo Planters, Similarly, complaints were entertained from particular individuals of the Police Force which as a class had been defamed. (See Pratap Chandra Suba Roy v. King Emperor Pratap Chandra Suba Roy v. King Emperor (1925) 29 C.W.N. 904:42 Cal.L.J. 478:90 I.C. 387:A.I.R. 1925 Cal. 1121 18. The complaint was entertained in that case from particular individuals of Indigo Planters, Similarly, complaints were entertained from particular individuals of the Police Force which as a class had been defamed. (See Pratap Chandra Suba Roy v. King Emperor Pratap Chandra Suba Roy v. King Emperor (1925) 29 C.W.N. 904:42 Cal.L.J. 478:90 I.C. 387:A.I.R. 1925 Cal. 1121 18. The Statesman of Calcutta faced, in 1927, a complaint under Section 500I.P.C. It had published an articles which, among others, stated: “The marriage age of the Hindu woman was still between nine and thirteen.… the country's widow's to the number of nearly 30 Millions were registered as under God's curse, aluts at home and prostitutes abroad…7#x2026;” A Division Bench consisting of Chotzner and Gregory, 33. took the view that the case need further enquiry and could not be stopped at the threshold. (See Mahim Chandra Roy v. A.H. Watson. Mahim Chandra Roy v. A.H. Watson. (1928) I.L.R. 55 Cal. 1280:A.I.R. 1929 Cal. 191 19. Some of the girls students of the Intermediate College of Aligarh, successfully resorted to legal action for defamation when the “University Punch” published reports about their frequenting broad Marris Road, green meadows and canal banks which were frequented by pleasure seeking youths, and in the context of Meena Bazar exhibition held within the precincts of the college, made reference to them as ‘Muslim harlots’ of Meena Bazar. (See Wahib Ullah v. Emperor. Wahib Ullah v. Emperor. A.I.R.1935 All. 743 Again the Allahabad High Court took the view that the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh was a determinate body. (See Tek Chand v. R.K. Karanjia Tek Chand v. R.K. Karanjia (1969) Crl.L.J. 536. 20. In contrast to the above cases is Asha Parekh v. State of Bihar. Asha Parekh v. State of Bihar. (1977) Crl.L. J.21 That was a case initiated by four advocates against those responsible for the production of a film “Nadan”. Udaya Sinha, 3., of the Patna High Court elaborately considered the case law on the point, and ultimately held that the portrayal of the lawyer in the film had no relevance to lawyers as a class, and that the dialogues and visible representations pointed out only to Advocates who indulged in objectionable practices. 21. (1966) MLJ. (Crl.) 222:A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1451 supra, was one where an imputation was made against the body of Public Prosecutors. 21. (1966) MLJ. (Crl.) 222:A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1451 supra, was one where an imputation was made against the body of Public Prosecutors. The Supreme Court held that the persons defamed constituted an identifiable and determinate body. Individual members were held competent the complain about the defamation. 22. In (1972)2 S.C.J. 596:(1972) MLJ. (Crl.) 795:A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2609the offending report was about a resolution passed by a conference. The Supreme Court observed that though the conference was organised by the Dravida Kazhagam, such a conference was a separate body with its organisation. Similarly, though the draft of the resolution was prepared by the Secretary of the Trichi Branch of the Dravida Kazhagam, it had been moved by the President of the conference and passed by the conference. The conclusion of the Supreme Court is given in paragraph 21 of the judgment. It was held that the conference was not such a determinate class ike the one in the cases referred to earlier. And the Court further observed: “It is impossible to have any definite idea as to its composition, the number of persons who attended,‘the ideas and the ideologiets to which they subscribed, and whether all of them positively agreed to the resolution in question”. (Emphasis Supplied) 23. In (1972)2 S.C.J.596 the Supreme Court noted that when there is an express statutory provision as in Section 499, Explanation 2, the rules of the common law in England cannot be applied. It was at the same time observed that there, existed no difference in the principles as laid down in Explanation 2 to Section 499 and the law as applied in such cases in England. 24. The decision of the Supreme Court extracts passages from English text books and refers to the English decisions up to Knupffe v. London Express Newspapers Ltd Knupffe v. London Express Newspapers Ltd (1944) A.C. 116A subsequent English decision of importance on this topic is that of the House of Lords, Morgan v. Odhame Press Ltd. and another. Morgan v. Odhame Press Ltd. and another. (1971) All E.R.1156 Chapter four of ‘Libel and Slander’ by Peter F. and Carter-Ruck gives reference to other decisions on the point but not reported in Legal Journals. 25. The principles that emerge from the decisions appear to be the following: As a general rule, a complaint can be filed by anybody, whether he is an aggrieved person or not. (1971) All E.R.1156 Chapter four of ‘Libel and Slander’ by Peter F. and Carter-Ruck gives reference to other decisions on the point but not reported in Legal Journals. 25. The principles that emerge from the decisions appear to be the following: As a general rule, a complaint can be filed by anybody, whether he is an aggrieved person or not. Section 199, Crl.P.C., engrafts an exception to that general rule. In relation to offences covered by Sections 499 to 502 occurring in Chapter XXI of the I.P.C., only an aggrieved person can move the Magistrate. The section is mandatory. If a complaint is filed by one who is not an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction would be void. 26. Under Section 499, read along with Explanation 2, a defamatory imputation against a collection of persons would fall within the definition of defamation. The language of the ‘Explanation’ is no doubt wide. Nevertheless, the collection of the persons must be an identifiable body so that it is possible to say with definitness that the particular group of persons, as distinguished from the rest of the community, was defamed. The identity of the collection of persons must be established as relatable to the defamatory words or imputations. (See paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment in A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2609:(1972) 2 S.C.J. 596 supra). Only a definite body would amount to a ‘collection of persons’ referred to in Section 499, I.P.C., read with Explanation 2 thereto. 27. Applying the above principles, I am of the view that the offending passage does not postulate an identifiable and determinate group of persons. The statement does not say that all the leaders of the teachers organisations received unmeritted emoluments. The significance of the introduction of the word ‘some’ while referring to the leaders cannot be overlooked. The employment of that term would necessarily make the class unidentifiable and indeterminate. In that view of the matter, it is impossible to assert that all the leaders were the receipients of undue emoluments. As to who among them were the bad elements would be anybody's guess. 28. The position is almost similar to the one considered by the Patna High Court in Government Advocate v. Gopal Bandit Dass. Government Advocate v. Gopal Bandit Dass. A.I.R.1922 Pat. 101 Two constables were alleged to have committed particular acts on particular occasions. As to who among them were the bad elements would be anybody's guess. 28. The position is almost similar to the one considered by the Patna High Court in Government Advocate v. Gopal Bandit Dass. Government Advocate v. Gopal Bandit Dass. A.I.R.1922 Pat. 101 Two constables were alleged to have committed particular acts on particular occasions. There was, however, no reference to them as belonging even to a particular Thana or police station. The Court held that there was nothing to indicate who the two police officers in question were. It was observed that when two constables were accused of a particular act, it did not follow from that all constables suffered in their individual reputation. 29. When, therefore a report states that four leaders indulged in a disgraceful conduct, all the leaders would not suffer in their reputation. In that situation, a member of such an unidentified and indeterminate class cannot pose as an aggrieved person within Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint is therefore incompetent and the trial is one without jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, I quash the complaint. 30. In coming to the above conclusion, a concern to ensure to the press the liberty it needs in the discharge of a great public duty, has largely weighed with us. Freedom of expression is the very life-blood of a healthy society. In a way it is the palm, the prize and the crown of democracy. Many have suffered the pillory of oppression, for the cause of the press. Very many cases have been fought for preserving the freedom of speech, in the wide sense it is understood. “Freedom of speech means freedom not only for the views of which you approve, but also freedom for the views of which you most heartility disapprove”. (See Verrall v. Great Yarmouth Borough Council Verrall v. Great Yarmouth Borough Council (1980)1 All E.R. 839(844-845) where the learned Judge quoted the lines of Tennyson, when the referred to England, as the land where- “A man may speak the thing he will. A land of settled Government. A land of just and old renown. Where Freedom slowly broadens down. (See Verrall v. Great Yarmouth Borough Council Verrall v. Great Yarmouth Borough Council (1980)1 All E.R. 839(844-845) where the learned Judge quoted the lines of Tennyson, when the referred to England, as the land where- “A man may speak the thing he will. A land of settled Government. A land of just and old renown. Where Freedom slowly broadens down. From precedent to precedent.” (Tennyson, ‘You ask me why’, 11 8-12) In Home Office v. Harmon Home Office v. Harmon (1982)1 All E.R. 532 (543) it was observed: “The right to receive information will generally involve a right to impart it, any exception must be strictly scrutinised and powerfully justified. …….Milton, in his famous address to Lords and Commons, urged that freedom to print and publish should not be shackled or restricted, and said in his peroration: ‘give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely, according to conscience, above all liberties’.” 31. The power of the press, and the prime importance in its protection is, however, not the exclusive consideration. An individual's reputation has also to be rejoined with by a Court of law. If, Milton was all praise for the print and the press, Shakespeare stressed the importance of the individuals’ reputation. That is what we find from the lines of the great poet quoted in the Introduction to ‘Libel and Slander’ by Peter F. and Carter Ruck, 1972 Edition. The lines quoted, include those in Othello, reading: “But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him. And makes me poor indeed.” (See Othello, Act III, Scene 3), and those in Richard II: “The Burest Treasure moral times afford 1st spotieso reputation; that away, Flan are but gilded loan of painted clay. xxx xxx xxx xxx Mine honour is my life, both grow in one, Take honour from as and my life is done.” 32. The power of the press as a means of communications over since the first monthly journal had been founded in Holland in 1586 and the earliest English newspaper in 1702 (See Erope 18th Century, George Rude P.169), is well understood. But immesurable as’ the power is, it is necessarily to be modulated by restraint of responsibility. 33. The power of the press as a means of communications over since the first monthly journal had been founded in Holland in 1586 and the earliest English newspaper in 1702 (See Erope 18th Century, George Rude P.169), is well understood. But immesurable as’ the power is, it is necessarily to be modulated by restraint of responsibility. 33. Hearly two hundred years back, the warning against abuse of power of the Press was given: “The abuse of the liberty of the Press has of late years become great, that no character is safe… The Public have been to blame by encouraging such papers. Many like the talk of a scandal, which does not effect themselves - and the man of middling rank chuckled to road the umours and intrigues of Lords and Ladies, tittle thinking that his turn would one day come, his harmise actions be misrepresented, and his character blested in a paragraph”. (Gazatter and New Daily Advertisor, 7.12.1789). According to the carnfield, the above wea “e remarkably actus forecast of the future, upto and including the present day”. (See his book “The Press and Society“Page 74. Braburg v. “Hayes (decided by the Supreme Court of America by a majority of 5 to 4 on 29.4.1972) and the Chearver's case (where Jack Landian was involved) decided by the High Court in England on 19.2.1982 have not recognised a claim for absolute inmanity for the journalist. 34. An eminent Edi:or said, years back: “Newspaper writing to no sui generis; it is in literature what brandy is in beverages.” (See Press and Society supra) It is equally profitable in that context to remember the words of Lord Mailahas: “Since the days of Noach, the effects of elconel have been known to induce the state of mind described in English as recklessten….” (See R. v. Lawrence R. v. Lawrence (1981)1 All E.R. 1057) 35. The press cannot onviously afford to be reckless in its functioning: it must pay had to the worse of Lord said: “The publishers of newspapers must know the habits of mind of their readers and I saw no justice in holding then liable if readers, behaving as they normally do, honesty reach conclusions which they might be expected to reach. If one were to adopt a stricter standard it would be too easy for purveyors of gossip to disguise their defematory matter…..” (See Morgan v. Odhams Press Ltd.. If one were to adopt a stricter standard it would be too easy for purveyors of gossip to disguise their defematory matter…..” (See Morgan v. Odhams Press Ltd.. Morgan v. Odhams Press Ltd.. (1971) 2 All E.R. 1156 at page 1163) 36. The petition is disposed of as above. M.C.M.----- Order accordingly.