JUDGMENT 1. THIS Rule Nisi was issued on an application of the three petitioners praying for quashing the proceedings of case No,. 57 of 1 983 instituted against them under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code on a complaint filed by the opposite party No. 1 and now pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum. 2. PETITIONER No. 1 is the editor and petitioner No. 2 is the publisher of the Calcutta based English daily called The Telegraph. Petitioner No. 3 is a journalist by profession and the writer of the article published under the caption There is danger ahead in the issue of The Telegraph dated January 30, 1983. The article contained an analysis of the alleged disintegrating political system in the country and widespread corruption, favouritism and nepotism in all walks of life. While discussing the then political situation in the country the writer, inter alia alluded to the brilliant success of Sri N. T. Rama Rao in the Andhra Pradash Election and The formation of a legislature party by him. On the question of eradication of corruption he, however, made the following criticism about Sri Rama Rao : "The carried the day by playing emotions. These are dangerous trends. Mr. Rama Rao is not the answer to the present situation. Take for instance the question of eliminating corruption, in an interview with Sunday when asked whether he had been honest in his film career, Mr. Rama Rao replied I am not talking about my professional career, I am talking about my political Carres, dedicated to the country. Before I dedicated myself to the country, I was dedicated to myself. This -is nothing short of hypocrisy especially in the context of the fact that almost every film actor in this country has black money. Moreover, Mr. Rama Rao's legislature party is full of old congressmen, rice millers, district lawyers etc. Incidentally district lawyers are invariably most corrupt persons. Even if Mr. Rama Rao undergoes a metamorphosis, his brigade will not let him eliminate corruption" 3. ON February 14, 1983 Nurul Alam, an advocate of Suri and the opposite party No. 1 herein, filed the complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum against the present petitioners under Section 501, Indian Penal Code. Even if Mr. Rama Rao undergoes a metamorphosis, his brigade will not let him eliminate corruption" 3. ON February 14, 1983 Nurul Alam, an advocate of Suri and the opposite party No. 1 herein, filed the complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum against the present petitioners under Section 501, Indian Penal Code. In the complaint the opposite party No. 1 alleged, inter alia, that the English daily The Telegraph though published in Calcutta, had its circulation at. Suri and was available in different stalls there. It was further alleged that the imputation "incidentally district lawyers are invariably most corrupt persons" was intentionally published to harm him as well as all other district lawyers in the country. 4. AFTER taking cognizance,, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant and two of his witnesses under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code and issued processes against the petitioners for their appearance, on being satisfied that a prima facia case under Section 501, Indian Penal Code had been made out against them. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners moved this Court and obtained the present Rule. Mr. Sankar Das Banerjee appearing in support of the Rule, has contended that for the impugned publication no action can lie under Section 500 or 501, Indian Penal Code at the instance of any individual district lawyer inasmuch as, the imputation does not relate to an identifiable, definite and determinate' body of persons. In other words, according to Mr. Bane the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in law in' taking cognizance of the offence of defamation on the complaint of the Opposite party No. 1 as he is not a "person aggrieved" Within the meaning of Section 199, Criminal Procedure Code. 5. AS can be seen from the impugned publication received with the lower court record the alleged defamatory statement is with respect to class of Persons namely, the district lawyers and not with respect to any individual lawyer, there fore, the question the naturally arises is whether a person who is a member of that class can maintain a prosecution for defamation merely by virtue c his being a member of the class, without anything' more. To be more explicit, the question is can any member of the class so defamed bring an action for defamation even though there is no imputation against him personally and he is not person aimed at. 6. To be more explicit, the question is can any member of the class so defamed bring an action for defamation even though there is no imputation against him personally and he is not person aimed at. 6. TO bring home his contention Mr. Banerjee has roiled upon two decisions reported in AIR 19 72 SC 2609 (G. Narasimhan v. T. V. Chokkappa) and AIR 1970, Calcutta 216 (D. N. sen v. U. X. Bhadra). In the former case certain statements, alleged to be defamatory, ware published in some dailies in respect of certain resolution passed in a conference organised by the Dravida Kazhagram. party' One Chokkappa, an active member of the party and also the Chairman of the reception committee of the conference, filed a complaint before a Magistrate for defamation against the editor and the publishers of those dailies. The Magistrate, on the basis of the complaint and tier evidence recorded by him, decided to issue processes whereupon the editor and the publisher moved the Madras High Court in revision for quashing the proceeding against their. Being unsuccessful in the High Court, they then preferred appear to the Supreme Court with Special Leave. In allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court expressed the view that a defamatory imputation against a collection of persons undoubtedly falls within Explanation 2 to Section 499, Indian Penal Code, But when that explanation speaks of a collection of persons as eatable of being defamed, seed collection of persons must be a definite and determinate body so that the imputation in question can be said to relate to its individual members or components. It was also of the opinion that it was impossible to have any definite idea as to the number of persons who attended the conference, the ideas and ideologies to which they subscribed and whether all of them positively agreed to the resolution in question. The Conference clearly was not an identifiable or a definite body so that all those who attended it could be said to be its constituents who, if the Conference was defamed, would, in their turn be said to be defamed. The Chairman of the Reception Committee of he Conference could not therefore, be said to be an aggrieved person entitling him to maintain the complaint within the meaning of section 198, Criminal P. C. 7. The Chairman of the Reception Committee of he Conference could not therefore, be said to be an aggrieved person entitling him to maintain the complaint within the meaning of section 198, Criminal P. C. 7. IN that view of the matter, the appeals were allowed and' the proceedings before the Magistrate were quashed. 8. IN the above case reference was made to art earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of U. P. reported in AIR 1965 SC 1451 ., In that case, a highly defamatory statement was published in a newspaper called "kaliyug" against the Public' Prosecutor and. the Assistant Public Prosecutors of Aligarh. In an action for defamation by the Public Prosecutor and 11 Assistant Public Prosecutors of Aligarh the Supreme Court held that the action was maintainable inasmuch as, the prosecuting staff of Aligarh and even of the State of U. P. formed an identifiable group or collection of persons within the meaning of Section 499, Explanation 2 of the Indian Penal Code in the sense that one could, with certainty, say that a group of persons had been defamed as distinguished' from the rest of the community and, therefore, the complaint was a competent complaint. In the Calcutta case reported in AIR 1970 Calcutta 216 certain statements alleged to. be defamatory,' were published in a newspaper against the spiritual Head of the Shouimari Ashram whereupon a member of the Ashram made a complaint under Section 500, Indian Penal Code against the editor and the publisher of the newspaper. In quashing the proceeding, a. learned Single Judge of this court observed that "if a person complains that he has been defamed as a member of a class he must satisfy the court that the imputation is against him personally and he is the person aimed at, before he can maintain a. prosecution for defamation. ' In short, the grievance of the complainant should not merely be the one shared by every member of an organised society" 9. FROM the decisions cited above, the real test appears to be whether the class or body in respect of which the defamatory words have been used is a definite and determinate body so that the imputation in question can be said to relate to its individual members or component enabling on individual member of it to maintain a complaint. FROM the decisions cited above, the real test appears to be whether the class or body in respect of which the defamatory words have been used is a definite and determinate body so that the imputation in question can be said to relate to its individual members or component enabling on individual member of it to maintain a complaint. If the class or body in respect of which the defamatory words have been used is not a definite and determinate body, an individual member of such body cannot maintain an action for defamation unless he satisfies the court that amputation has been made against him personally and he is one person aimed at. The question, therefore, boils down to this Whether the words 'district lawyers' connote a definite and determinate body or persons. If they do, the impugned proceeding is maintainable; If not, it is an abuse of the process of court and must be quashed. 10. WE have given our anxious consideration to the question before us and we agree with the contention of Mr. Banerjee that the words 'district lawyers' do not connote a definite and determinate body or persons. Unlike in the case reported in AIR 1 965 SC 1451, the defamatory words used in the instant case do not refer to the district lawyers of any particular district or even of any particular state but of the whole of the country comprising numerous lawyers. In such a situation, we are unable to hold that the defamatory imputation against the 'district lawyers' would be defamation within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 499, Indian Penal Code and that such imputation would be defamation of the opposite party No. II as a member of that class. Therefore, in order to maintain the prosecution for defamation as a member of the class that is, the "district Lawyers" he must satisfy the court that the imputation is against him personally and that he is the person aimed at. In this connection, we have gone through the complaint of opposite party No. 1 but we do not find any averment therein that the imputation was made against him personally. In this connection, we have gone through the complaint of opposite party No. 1 but we do not find any averment therein that the imputation was made against him personally. During his examination by the learned Magistrate under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code he simply stated that on account of the impugned publication the prestige and reputation of the lawyers in general had been lowered in the estimation of the public and he, as a district lawyer, felt aggrieved by such publication. Two witnesses were examined by him of whom P.W.2 Kazi Anwarul Huq happens to be his client. He stated that on reading the impugned publication he formed a bad opinion about the conduct of lawyers and reported the publication of the defamatory statement to the opposite party No. 1. P.W.2 nowhere stated that he formed any bad impression about opposite party No. 1. The remaining witness Mahadeb Mondal (P.W.3) is a registered clerk of another advocate of Suri. All that he said was that on reading the defamatory article he became curious as to the cause which prompted its publication and discussed the matter with opposite party No. 2. 11. FROM the foregoing facts and circumstances, it will thus appear that it is not the case of opposite party No. 1 that the imputation is against him personally or that he is the person aimed at. His only allegation is that he, as a district lawyer, shared the common grievance with every other district lawyer of the country. That being the position, he cannot be said to be the person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 199, Criminal Procedure Code and the prosecution for defamation is not maintainable at his instance. As the pending proceeding is an abuse of the process of court, we direct that the same be quashed. The Rule is thus made absolute. Rule made absolute.