JUDGMENT 1. - Accused Shyam Narain Maurya has filed this appeal against the judgment dated March 21, 1977 of the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar convicting the accused appellant under Sections 500 and 501 I.P.C. and sentencing the accused-appellant separately under each count to undergo six months' imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In case of each default of payment of fine to further suffer two months' simple imprisonment. 2. It may be stated that arguments were re-heard and the learned counsel for the appellant was asked to give arguments in writing, which too have been considered. 3. The case started against the accused-appellant in the Court of Sessions Judge, Alwar on the complaint filed by Shri Kripa Dayal Mathur, the then Public Prosecutor. Alwar under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint was filed on October 17, 1973 by the Public Prosecutor under Section 198B(3)(c) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The State Government through the commissioner for Home Affairs and Secretary to the Government, Shri Ram Singh. had accorded sanction of prosecution of the appellant who is the Editor, Publisher and Printer of the weekly news paper 'Vishva Vijay'. 4. The accused-appellant Shyam Narain Maurya is and was the Publisher, Editor and Printer of the weekly news paper, 'Vishva Vijay' which was published from Jaipur and the paper had also its office at 164, Dhobipada, Alwar, In the month of April, 1973 Shri Chandra Prakash PW 4 was the Collector and District Magistrate, Alwar and he was also the Chairman of the Urban Improvement Trust. Alwar in his official capacity. In the 41st issue dated April 18, 1973 the accused-appellant published and printed at Jaipur false and malicious imputation concerning Shri Chandra Prakash I.A.S., the then Collector and District Magistrate. Alwar for acts done by him in the discharge of his duties as public servant and the said publication and printing was done for the purpose of defaming Shri Chandra Prakash in the discharge of his official duties. Alwar for acts done by him in the discharge of his duties as public servant and the said publication and printing was done for the purpose of defaming Shri Chandra Prakash in the discharge of his official duties. An item under the caption in Hindi, Alwar Ki Janta Ko Aantakit Kar Lakhon Rupaye Ki Rishwat Khane Wale Jiladhish Chandraprakash Ke Kale Karname ?" was published in the aforesaid 41st issue dated April 18, 1973, against which Shri Chandra Prakash, the then Collector and District Magistrate, Alwar moved the State Government for taking action against the accused-appellant Publisher, Printer and Editor of the news paper weekly 'Vishva' Vijay. The matter was examined by the Government and under Ex P/1 dated October 15, 1973 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 1988, Cr. P.C. (Act No. V. of 1898) the State Government accorded the sanction for prosecution of Shyam Narain Maurya, Editor, Publisher and Printer of weekly new, paper Vishva Vijay' for offences under Section 500/501 & 502 I.P.C. and also authorised the Pubic Prosecutor, Alwar under Section 198B (3) (c) Cr. P.C. to file complaint against the accused-appellant in the Court of Sessions Judge, Alwar and to conduct the same on behalf of the State Government. As already stated earlier, the Public Prosecutor filed the complaint on October 17, 1973 in the Court of Sessions Judge Alwar. The Sessions Judge tried the accused. On behalf of the prosecution as many as four witnesses were examined and thereafter the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused did not dispute that 'sanction for his prosecution had been given by the State Government under Section 198B, Cr. P.C., 1898 to the Public Prosecutor, but took a plea that the sanction was not given by competent authority. The accused did not dispute that he was the Publisher Printer and Editor of the Hindi weekly in question. He did not dispute that he had published the news item in his Hindi weekly dated April 18, 1973, but said that whatever was published by him was correct and had been published in public good. The accused had examined six witnesses in defence. The learned Sessions Judge as already stated earlier convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid. 5. He did not dispute that he had published the news item in his Hindi weekly dated April 18, 1973, but said that whatever was published by him was correct and had been published in public good. The accused had examined six witnesses in defence. The learned Sessions Judge as already stated earlier convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record of the case. 6. It may be stated at the very first stage that at no stage of the trial, nor before this Court it has been said on behalf of the accused-appellant that he was not the Publisher, Printer and Editor of the Hindi weekly 'Vishva Vijay' published from Jaipur. He has also not said that the said paper was not distributed in Jaipur, Alwar and other parts of the State of Rajasthan. The accused-appellant has not even disputed the publication of the aforesaid news against Shri Chandra Prakash, I.A. S., the then Collector and District Magistrate, Alwar, but has taken a stand that whatever was published by him was true and correct and was published for the general good of the public. A look at Ex. P/5 the 41st issue dated April 18, 1973 of the Hindi weekly Vishva Vijay' will show that under the caption ALWAR KI JANATA KO AATANKIT KAR, LAKHON RUPAYE KI RISHWAT KHANE WALE JILADHISH CHANDRA PRAKASH KE KALE KARNAME ?" an item has been published. There can be no dispute that it is an imputation against Shri Chandra Prakash, I.A.S., the then Collector and District Magistrate, Alwar. A look at pages 1, 2 and 4 will show that allegations have been levelled against Shri Chandra Prakash, I. A. S., Collector and District Magistrate, Alwar in his official capacity. At page 1 besides the imputation under the caption as aforesaid it has been said that illegal gratification to the extent of Rs. 1,50 000/- in respect of Scheme No. 6 of Urban Improvement Trust. Rs. 50,000/- in the matter of Gopal Talkies, Alwar was demanded/taken and on the ground of not paying of Rs. 50,000/- as aforesaid the 8 shops at Station road were demolished. It was also stated that it was the first instalment published in news paper so far as the conduct of Shri Chandra Prakash I.A.S. is concerned. Rs. 50,000/- in the matter of Gopal Talkies, Alwar was demanded/taken and on the ground of not paying of Rs. 50,000/- as aforesaid the 8 shops at Station road were demolished. It was also stated that it was the first instalment published in news paper so far as the conduct of Shri Chandra Prakash I.A.S. is concerned. In the complaint it was specifically mentioned that the article published was false and malicious imputation concerning Shri Chandra Prakash for the purpose of defaming him in the discharge of official duties as public servant. 7. The first contention of learned counsel for the accused-appellant is that the complaint had to be filed within a period of six months, which period was to expire on October 17, 1973. On that day the complaint was not filed and was in fact filed on October 19, 1973, but an ante-dated endorsement about the presentation of the complaint before the Munsarim of the Court was made, so as to show as if the complaint had been filed on October 17, 1973 within a period of six months. It has also contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that even if it be assumed that the complaint was filed on October 17, 1973 before the Munsarim of the Court, it was no proper presentation as the same should have been filed before the learned Sessions Judge. The case for the first time came before the learned Sessions Judge on October 19, 1973 and therefore, it should be taken that the complaint was filed on October 19, 1973 beyond the period of six months and, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge could not have taken cognizance of the case. A similar argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant before the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar and the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar dealt with this argument at page II of his judgment and concluded that in fact the complaint had been filed on October 17, 1973 by the Public Prosecutor. In dealing with the argument raised terce him that the complaint could not have been filed before the Munsarim of the Court, the learned Sessions Judge said that the Munsarim was the Chief Ministerial Official of the Court and thus the complaint presented before him was properly presented before the learned Sessions Judge. In dealing with the argument raised terce him that the complaint could not have been filed before the Munsarim of the Court, the learned Sessions Judge said that the Munsarim was the Chief Ministerial Official of the Court and thus the complaint presented before him was properly presented before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has also referred to the certified copy of the Judges' Attendance Register in which it has been mentioned that on October 17, 1973, the learned Sessions Judge was holding his camp at Ganganagar and had returned from Ganganagar only on October 18, 1973. Referring to the provisions of Order 5 Rule 1 (7), Order 7 Rule 17 (2). Order 16 Rules 1 and 4 C.P.C. and also to an order issued by learned District & Sessions Judge, Alwar that the Munsarim shall sign routine orders, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the presentation before the Munsarim of the Court was proper and as such the complaint having been filed on October 17, 1973 i.e. within a period of six months, was filed within limitation. Assailing the aforesaid conclusions of the learned Sessions Judge, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that if any authorisation has been made by the learned District Judge under the aforesaid provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or under the General Rules (Civil), it could not ensure for criminal matters and, therefore, the Munsarim was not competent to take the complaint. It may be stated at this very stage that any order made either tinder the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure or under the General Rules (Civil) cannot be said to have been made for criminal cases. There is no provision either in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the General Rules (Criminal), 1952 as to before whom the criminal cases shall be presented. Under Section 198-B of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which is corresponding to Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will show that it is the Public Prosecutor who has to file the complaint in writing direct to the Court of Sessions and the Court of Sessions could take cognizance of it without the case being committed before it. The general rule is that so far as offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the Court can take cognizance only upon a complaint by such person aggrieved by the offence. But so far as the high dignitaries like the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State etc. including a public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a Sate in respect of his functions as public servant are concerned, are exceptions to the above general rule carved out and the Court of Sessions Judge can take cognizance without the case being committed to it. No complaint as aforesaid can be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction of the State Government, in the case of a public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State. The limitation prescribed is six months and no Court of Sessions can take cognizance of an offence as aforesaid unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. It will, therefore, be clear that it is not necessary that cognizance be taken within a period of six months from the date on which the offence is said to have been committed, but the requirement of the law is that complaint should be made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. Thus, if the complaint was made on October 17, 1973 in respect of the article published in the 41st issue of the Hindi weekly in question Vishva Vijay' dated April 18, 1973, then it can be said that the complaint was made within six months from the date on which the offence, if any, was committed. A look at the endorsement on the back of page 2 of the complaint will show that it is an endorsement dated October 17, 1973 made by the Munsarim of the Court to the effect that it was Shri K.D. Mathur who presented it and the same was within time and it was also mentioned in the aforesaid endorsement that for proper order the case is fixed on October 19, 1973. It was on October 19, 1973 that the case came up before the learned Sessions Judge and he took cognizance of the offence and ordered issue of a bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 1,000/ . It appears that the general practice in the Court of Sessions Judge was that all Civil and Criminal matters were presented before the Munsarim of the Court and not before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge had issued a general order as far back as in 1951 that the Munsarim shall sign the routine orders of the Court. It may be that the said order was issued under the General Rules (Civil), but it has not been disputed and it also appears from the general order of the learned Sessions Judge that criminal matters were presented before the Munsarim. Under these circumstance, it can be said that the complaint presented before the Munsarim of the Court, who is the Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court, was presented before the learned Sessions Judge on October 17, 1973. 8. So far as the argument of the learned counsel that in fact that complaint was not presented on October 17, 1973 but was presented on October 19, 1973 and was ante-dated to October 17, 1973 is concerned, it may be stated that there is no material to come to this conclusion. Even the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. did not come out with such a case, though in his written statement/submissions such a plea was raised, but no evidence was led to that effect. It no doubt appears from register No. 18 Register of Original Criminal Cases for the period 1973 that only one original criminal ease was filed in the Court of Sessions Judge in 1973 and that is the present case. It was registered in the aforesaid register on October 19, 1973, but a case is only registered after the cognizance of offence is taken and in this case the cognizance of offence was taken on October 19, 1973 and the case was registered on that day, but on this ground it cannot be said in the absence of any evidence that the complaint was not made by the Public Prosecutor on October 17, 1973 before the Munsarim. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel that though the complaint was made on October 19, 1973, but the endorsement of the Munsarim was ante dated to October 17, 1973. 9. Defamation has been defined in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The said offence of defamation has been defined in the aforesaid action with the :rid of four Explanations and ten Exceptions. There are several Explanation, and Illustrations appended to Exceptions. The necessary ingredients of the office of defamation are three, namely (i) there must be a making or publishing of imputations concerning a person; (ii) such imputations have been made by words or by signs or by visible representations; and (iii) the said imputations must have been made with an intention to harm, or knowing or having reasons to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of the person concerned. So far as the first ingredient out of the aforesaid three ingredients is concerned, it may be stated at the very outset that it has not been disputed that the imputation published in Hindi weekly in question dated April 18, 1973 was published by the accused-appellant.He was the publisher, editor and printer on that date and that it concerns Shri Chandra Prakash, I.A.S., the then Collector and District Magistrate, Alwar. Under Explanation 4 to Section 499 Indian Penal Code 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 credit of that person, or rouses it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. The question therefore, is as to whether the material contained in the article in quest on which, as already cited earlier is definitely an imputation against Shri Chandra Prakash Meena, the then Collector and District Magistrate. Alwar, directly or indirectly lowers his character as public servant in the estimation of others ? The question therefore, is as to whether the material contained in the article in quest on which, as already cited earlier is definitely an imputation against Shri Chandra Prakash Meena, the then Collector and District Magistrate. Alwar, directly or indirectly lowers his character as public servant in the estimation of others ? In order to see as to whether the aforesaid imputation or accusation was made by tie accused-appellant with an intention or knowledge or belief that it will harm or with the knowledge that it is likely to harm the reputation of Shri Chandra Prakash-the question as to whether the material contained in the article in question is defamatory is to be considered first. In my opinion, a mere reading of not only the article under the aforesaid caption along with the details at pages 1, 2 and 4 of 41st issue of the pare in question will leave no manner of doubt that the imputation is defamatory and concerns Shri Chandra Prakash, the then Collector and District Magistrate, Alwar and relates to his conduct as a public servant. If one says that a public servant has accepted bribe, with the article in question in respect of his black duties and in respect of his accepting/demanding bribe, then there can be harm and no doubt that imputation or accusation is defamatory. Shri Chandra Prakash appeared as PW 4 and has stated on oath that in the Hindi weekly -Vishva Vijay' dated April 18, 1973 under the caption ALWAR KI JANATA KO AATANKIT KAR, LAKHON RUPAYE KI RISHWAT KHANE WALE JILADHISH CHANDRA PRAKASH KE KALEKAR- NAME ?" an article has been published against him. He has also stated that in the said article it has been published that he has taken Rs. 50,000/- as illegal gratification in the matter of Gopal Talkies and pages 1, 2 and 4 of the said Hindi weekly contain material which is not true and has been published in order to defaming him. He has also stated that in his Hindi weekly news paper earlier to August 15, 1972 the accused-appellant had published defamatory material relating to the two Munsif Magistrates and a complaint was lodged in the High Court and there in contempt matter the accused-appellant as sentenced. In the capacity of District Magistrate he has to issue warrant against the accused-appellant. He has also stated that in his Hindi weekly news paper earlier to August 15, 1972 the accused-appellant had published defamatory material relating to the two Munsif Magistrates and a complaint was lodged in the High Court and there in contempt matter the accused-appellant as sentenced. In the capacity of District Magistrate he has to issue warrant against the accused-appellant. He has also stated that after having published and printed false and malicious allegations against the Munsif Magistrates as aforesaid the accused had asked him to give advertisements for publication in the news paper on behalf of Urban Improvement Trust of which he (Chandra Prakash) was the Chairman. He did not think it prover to oblige the accused and the accused became angry and has published false and malicious imputation against him not only in paper dated April 18, 1973, but in subsequent issues of the paper. It will, therefore, be clear that Shri Chandra Prakash has stated that the imputations in the Hindi weekly in question dated April 18, 1973 were published in order to harm his reputation and to defame him. A look at the cross-examination of Shri Chandra Prakash PW 4 will show that nothing favourable to the accused either on the question as to whether article contained false and malicious accusation against Shri Chandra Prakash or on the question as to whether the said article contained truthful information could he brought out. It further appears from the cross-examination that Shri Chandra Prakash was not even cross-examined in respect of his statement in examination-in-chief that he had to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused-appellant in compliance of the order of the High Court which has sentenced him in a contempt matter in respect of matter of a Munsiff Magistrate or the accused had come to seek advertisement of Urban Improvement Trust of which Shri Chandra Prakash was the Chairman and he did not oblige him. No evidence in rebuttal was filed by the accused so far as aforesaid statement made by Shri Chandra Prakash in examination-in-chief is concerned. Even in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C the accused did not explain this part of the statement of Shri Chandra Prakash against him. The only plea taken by the accused was that the article contained true and correct information and it was published in general good, of the public. Even in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C the accused did not explain this part of the statement of Shri Chandra Prakash against him. The only plea taken by the accused was that the article contained true and correct information and it was published in general good, of the public. A look at the defence evidence led by the accused-appellant will show that none of the witnesses have said that Shri Chandra Prakash accepted and demanded illegal gratification as alleged by the accused appellant in the article published in the aforesaid 41st issue of Hindi weekly dated April 18, 1973 under the aforesaid caption DW 1 is B.N. Sharma, a journalist residing in Scheme No. 1 of the Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar. All that has been stated by him is that in Scheme No. 6.40 Bighas of land of Kishan Lal Sharma behind Manu Marg was acquired by the Urban Improvement Trust, when Shri Chandra Prakash was Chairman of the Trust and that Rs. 8,000/- per Bigha was paid as compensation. He further stated that for land opposite the bungalow of Collector, Alwar the land was acquired at Rs. 30,00/- per Bigha and it was a better colony. It has not been stated that as to when the land was acquired at Rs. 3,000/- per Bigha. According to him he had only hearing that the land of Kishan Lal Sharma was acquired at Rs. 8,000/- per Bigha. Shiv Prasad Verma DW 2 is also a journalist and publishes some paper and he has also stated similarly. DW3 Ram Avtar Kaushik is also a journalist. He has stated that he had read the articles published in April 18, 1973 issue against Shri Chandra Prakash. He further stated that in subsequent issue of the paper of his (accused's paper) article published in respect of Shri Chandra Prakash. According to his statement, he (Ram Avtar Kaushik) also published articles against Shri Chandra Prakash in respect of collection of papaw seeds. He admitted that the accused had been punished in some matter in respect of publication of news in his paper though he cannot state that it was in respect of Munsiff. He only states about some F.I.R. No. 388/73 in Police Station, Kotwali Alwar against Shri Chandra Prakash DW 5 is Gopal Dass. He admitted that the accused had been punished in some matter in respect of publication of news in his paper though he cannot state that it was in respect of Munsiff. He only states about some F.I.R. No. 388/73 in Police Station, Kotwali Alwar against Shri Chandra Prakash DW 5 is Gopal Dass. He does not state that any illegal gratification was demanded or accepted by Shri Chandra Prakash from him or any other person. DW 6 is Ramdan Singh and he stated that he has made some compliant, against Shri Chandra Prakash to the Vigilance Commissioner which related to the cancellation of some transfer of one Dr. Rajendra Prasad. He also slated and some affidavit of Niranjan Lal, who has not been examined in respect of demark of illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/-. Though he has also stated that Shri Chandra Prakash has demanded some money from Vyapar Samiti, Alwar, but admits that at that time he was not in Alwar and only on the basis of affidavit filed by one Niranjan Lal he said in this statement that Rs. 10 000/- were demanded and he has no personal knowledge. It will, therefore, appear that none of the defence witnesses examined by the accused state Shri Chandra Prakash accepted or demanded any illegal gratification as was published in the article under the caption as aforesaid of Hindi weekly in question dated April 18, 1973. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the material as contained in Hindi weekly in question of April 18, 1975 was defamatory and was in respect of Shri Chandra Prakash, the then Collector and District Magistrate, Alwar in respect of his conduct in discharge of his duties as public servant. That apart, a bare reading of the article in question will show that the material contained is defamatory per se. As already stated earlier Shri Chandra Prakash stated that the said article was published in order to harm his reputation and in such cases it can be said that ingredient 3 as aforesaid of offence under Section 499 I.P.C. is made out and the imputation concerning Shri Chandra Prakash was made with intention to harm or with the knowledge and belief to harm the reputation of Shri Chandra Prakash, the then Collector and District Magistrate, Alwar in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his duties as public servant. He has already been said earlier that it is not disputed and it has already been proved on record that the accused appellant published and printed the matter in his Hindi weekly dated April 1, 1973 and that such matter is defamatory per se. 10. The accused has come out with the case that the imputation was made for the general good of the public. The accused has placed reliance on Exceptions 2 and 3 and more specifically to Exception 9 to Section 499 I.P.C. The various Exceptions cover the entire field of privileges available in defamatory cases, rather privileges contained in the aforesaid Exceptions represent the freedom of speech and expression which is foundation of the democratic institutions, if the same has been guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The various Exceptions contained in Section 499 I.P.C. are also subjected to large number of conditions. The law is settled that if an accused claims the benefit of any of the Exceptions, the burden of proof is upon him, though the same can be discharged by preponderance of probabilities and the accused is not required to produce the evidence to discharge his burden of the same standard as is required by the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused, but before the slight burden on the accused which is to be discharged by preponderance of probabilities can be said to be discharged, there should be some material on record to show that the burden has been so discharged. The Supreme Court in the case of (1) Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 S.C. 97 , has said that where in a case of defamation the accused takes recourse to Exception 9 to Section 499 I.P.C., then the task of providing the same has to be offered by the accused must be very low and the accused is not required to discharge the burden to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. No sooner the accused discharges the aforesaid slight burden by preponderance of probabilities, the burden shifts to the prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus. The learned counsel for the accused in support of his case that the case falls under the 9th Exception to Section 499 I.P.C. has contended that journalist of the newspaper edition is required to give more weight age to the public good in the law of Press in India. The learned counsel for the accused in support of his case that the case falls under the 9th Exception to Section 499 I.P.C. has contended that journalist of the newspaper edition is required to give more weight age to the public good in the law of Press in India. He has referred to 1980 Edition of D. D. Basu to the following effect : Freedom of Press - No less important is the function of the Press in exposing the abuses of power by and corruption of public officials and in keeping them responsible to the people, whom they are expected to serve ( Mills v. Alabama (1966) 384 U. S. 214 ; Near v. Minnesota (1931) 283 US 697 (719-20). " 11. The learned counsel has further referred to the book Tradition of American Commonwealth by Bryce at pages 275 and 366, which have also been given at page 15 of aforesaid book of D. D. Basu as under : The Press and particularly the Newspaper Press stands by common consent, first amongst the organ of public opinion ......... The conscience and common sense of the nation as a whole keep down the evils which have erupt into the working of the Constitution and may in time extinguish them. That which .... .... .... we may call the genius of universal publicity has some disagreeable results, but the wholesome ones are greater and mere numerous ......... No serious evils, no ranking sore in the body politic can remain long concealed and when it is disclosed, it is half destroyed. So long as title opinion of a nation is sound, the main lines of its policy cannot go far wrong. It is also written that when earliest demand for freedom of Press was made in the American Colony against British absolutism it was assessed as an instrument whereby oppressive officers were ashamed or intimidated into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs. 12. The Learned Counsel Referred to the case of Bennet Coleman v. Union of India, AIR 1973 S.C. 106 . In the aforesaid case the majority, Mathew J.) Held that liberty of the Press is an essential part of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (A) of the Constitution. The Press has the right of free propagation and free circulation without any previous restraint on publication. In the aforesaid case the majority, Mathew J.) Held that liberty of the Press is an essential part of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (A) of the Constitution. The Press has the right of free propagation and free circulation without any previous restraint on publication. If a law were to single out the Press for laying down prohibitive burdens on it that would restrict the Circulation, penalise its freedom of choice as to personnel, prevent newspapers from being started and Compel the Press to Government aid. This would violate Article 19 (1) (A) and would fall outside the Protection Afforded By Article 19(2). 13. A perusal of this authority will make it clear that the right of freedom of speech are protected in provisions contained in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India. A bare reading of Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India will show that nothing in sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) i. e. the right of freedom of speech and expressions shall affect the expression of operation of law in relation to defamation also. Therefore, if publication of any news item in a newspaper amounts to offence punishable under Section 499 I.P.C. unless the case of the accused falls in any of the Exceptions, the accused can hardly say that he has committed an offence of defamation, he had a right to do so and he did so in the exercise of the right of freedom of expression. 14. In the instant case it is to be seen that as claimed by the accused his case falls under any of the Exceptions. It has already been said in earlier part t of the judgment that the publication of the news item amounts to defamation as dc fired in Section 499 I.P.C. Exception (1) relates to plea of justification and Exceptions 2, 3, 5 and 6 relate to the plea of fair comment on a matter of public interest. So far as Exceptions 9 and 10 are concerned, they are related to cases of or imputations made, in good faith by a person for the public good and the case of caution intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed or for the public good. So far as Exceptions 9 and 10 are concerned, they are related to cases of or imputations made, in good faith by a person for the public good and the case of caution intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed or for the public good. It will be clear that so far 'good faith' is concerned,it finds place in all the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C. except Exceptions 1 & 4. 'Good faith' is defined in Section 52 I.P.C. and according to that term nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention. The term `good faith' implies, not only an upright mental attitude and clear conscience of a person, but also the doing of the act in a manner which shows that ordinary prudence has been exercised according to the standards of a reasonable person. It contemplates an honest effort to ascertain the facts, upon which exercise of the power must rest. In the instant case it may be stated that the accused has failed to discharge the burden to prove the exception that the imputation is either truthful or has been made in good faith for the public good. The case of the accused does not fall under any of the Exceptions including second Exception, third Exception and Nineth Exception. 15. News papers have certain rights and obligations. They have full opportunity of expression and if exercising that right they make some exaggerations, they should be over-looked. But the freedom of expression as aforesaid does not extend to publication of false and malicious allegations in order to defame a person. The defence of fair comments applies to conduct and character and not to facts. Before the Printer and/or Publisher of a news paper publishes and prints any article in respect of the conduct of a public servant as his conduct comes to notice in the discharge of his public duties, the minimum which is expected is that he must make reasonable endeavour and effort to verify the facts and only thereafter publish such facts which are borne out on the record. It will appear in this case that not only in 41st issue dated April 18, 1973, but also in the subsequent issues it has been stated the it was first instalment and other addition follows. It will appear in this case that not only in 41st issue dated April 18, 1973, but also in the subsequent issues it has been stated the it was first instalment and other addition follows. The accused continued publishing false and malicious imputations against Shri Chandra Prakash, I.A.S. the then Collector and District Magistrate, Alwar. In my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly concluded that the accused committed offences under Sections 500 and 501 I. P.C. 16. The learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the accused under each of the count under Sections 500 and 501 I.P.C. to six months simple imprisonment and to pay a tine of Rs. 500/-. The question of sentence is in the discretion of the Court. In the instant case not only the accused published and printed false and malicious imputations with the intention to harm or with the knowledge of reasonable belief that it will harm the reputation of Shri Chandra Prakash, but also at no stage of trial or even before this Court repented for having made such allegations. It appears that accused is in the habit of publishing such matters against public servants, he having been punished for contempt by this Court in the matter of Munsiff Magistrates. Even during the course of trial the learned counsel for the accused never gave out that the accused repents and undertakes to conduct himself better in future. In such cases, in my opinion, the sentence of simple imprisonment as aforesaid and fine cannot be said to be excessive. 17. I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The accused-appellant is not present. He shall surrender to his bail bonds before the learned Sessions Judge to undergo remaining sentence awarded to him, failing which the learned Sessions Judge shall take steps to send the accused-appellant to jail to undergo remaining sentence awarded to him.Appeal dismissed. *******