Judgment :- Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 1988 is against the conviction and sentence entered against the accused in C.C. 1 of 1986 on the file of the IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulan and Crl.R.P. No. 854 of 1988 is against the conviction and sentence entered against the accused in C.C. 2 of 1986 of the same Court. The facts involved in these two cases are similar and therefore, they were heard together and a common judgment is being passed. 2. The case against these two accused persons is that they committed offence punishable under S. 500, I.P.C. Accused in C.C. 1/86 filed O.P. No. 2467/86 and the accused in C.C. 2 of 1986 filed O.P. 2535/86 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and these petitions contained allegations which are per se defamatory to the then Home Minister Shri Vayalar Ravi and these petitions were filed with the mala fide intention to malign him and to lower his reputation in the eye of the public. The Court below accepted the complainant's case and convicted the accused in both cases. 3. A brief resume of the facts of the case is as follows. P.W. 1 Shri Vayalar Ravi was the Home Minister in the State cabinet during the period 1986. In the last week of January, 1986 five Kuwaiti citizens came to Kerala and they stayed at different places in Kerala from 29-1-1986 to 7-2-1986. These 5 persons were included in the "prior reference category" and their entry into India was banned by the Government of India and as per the procedure prescribed their entry into Kerala should have been informed to the Government of India. On 31-3-1986 the accused in C.C. 1/86 filed O.P. 2467/86 alleging that the Home Minister Shri Vayalar Ravi permitted these Kuwaiti nationals to land at Trivandrum Air Port and they were treated as paying guests at the behest of the Home Minister. In the original petition it was alleged that the Home Minister knew about their arrival and he had given instruction to the police and other officials to allow these persons to enter the State and they were also allowed to stay, travel and attend public functions for several days with the knowledge and connivance of the Home Minister. The Home Minister was the first respondent in the original petition. The Home Minister was the first respondent in the original petition. The 2nd respondent was State Government represented by the Chief Secretary and the 3rd respondent was the Union of India. Paragraphs 7, 10, 11 and 12 of the original petition contained these allegations. In O.P. 2535 of 1986 filed by the accused in C.C. 2/86 all these allegations were made. The public prosecutor, Ernakulam filed complaint under S. 199(2) of the Cr.P.C. Exts. P4 and P3 are the sanction orders in C.C. 1/86 and 2 of 1986 respectively. 4. On the side of the complainant in both cases 4 witnesses each were examined. The Home Minister got himself examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is the then Special Secretary, Home and Vigilance, in the Government of Kerala, P.W. 1 deposed that he was not aware of the entry of foreign citizens till the matter was published in the English daily 'Indian Express'. P.W. 1 also deposed that thereafter he made necessary instruction to the concerned officials and one Port Registration Officer and a Circle Inspector working in the aerodrome and one Dy. Supdt. of Police (Administration) of Malappuram district were placed under suspension suspecting that they had committed certain irregularities in the matter and when question was raised on the floor of the Assembly he gave suitable answers in the Assembly and made known to the public that the Home Minister was in no way responsible for the entry of 5 Kuwaiti nationals who were included in the 'prior reference category'. In both these cases he gave evidence in that line. P.W. 2 the Special Secretary also deposed that the Home Minister did not commit any irregularity under the influence of any of the political parties. He also deposed that it was at the instance of the then Industries Minister, the 5 Kuwaiti nationals were accorded facility to travel in Kerala as paying guests and the decision was taken by the Chief Minister and the Home Minister was not consulted in the matter. 5. The main defence of these two accused persons was that they are entitled to the benefit of exceptions 1, 8, and 9 of S. 499, I.P.C. Both the accused contended that they filed the original petitions for the purpose of public good and all these allegations were made in good faith. 5. The main defence of these two accused persons was that they are entitled to the benefit of exceptions 1, 8, and 9 of S. 499, I.P.C. Both the accused contended that they filed the original petitions for the purpose of public good and all these allegations were made in good faith. Accused in C.C. 2/86 examined one witness as D.W. 1 and made an attempt to prove that some of the allegations made in the original petition were true. 6. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the allegations contained in the original petition are true. The accused also could not produce any evidence to show that the Home Minister was responsible for the entry of 5 Kuwaiti nationals who were included in the 'prior reference category'. The accused could not prove that the Home Minister had extended any undue facilities to these persons at the behest of the members of the Muslim League or any other political party. The evidence adduced by D.W. 1 is absolutely unworthy of credit. 7. The question that would arise for consideration is whether the accused are entitled to get protection of any of the exceptions mentioned in S. 499, I.P.C. The first exception relates to the imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published. The first exception reads : "It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. In order to attract the first exception to S. 499, I.P.C. it must be proved that the allegation is true. As already pointed out, it is not proved that the allegations made in the original petition are true. Therefore this exception has no application. Then comes the 8th exception. It reads : "It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation." 8. The counsel for the accused persons contended that the accused by filing the original petition before the High court were exercising their constitutional right and in doing so they acted in good faith. The main thing to be considered is whether the accused persons had any good faith. The counsel for the accused persons contended that the accused by filing the original petition before the High court were exercising their constitutional right and in doing so they acted in good faith. The main thing to be considered is whether the accused persons had any good faith. 'Good faith' has been defined in S. 52 of the I.P.C. as follows : ""Good faith" :- Nothing is said to be done or believed in "good faith" which is done or believed without due care and attention." The burden is on the accused to prove this fact. Whether a person took due care and attention before he made the imputation is a matter most often within the personal knowledge of that person himself. The accused must proved that he made due enquiries before he published the imputation. It is not enough to say that he made a formal enquiry in a slipshod manner. The words 'due care and attention' imply that the accused must have made the enquiry in a reasonable manner with all circumspection. It is true that the accused is not bound to prove that the enquiry made by him was fool-proof or without possibility of any error or chance of mistake. However, the accused must show that he got the information from proper source and he had reasonable grounds to believe the truth of the statement he made. The accused must prove by preponderance of probability that there was good faith on his part. The accused also should show that there was no malice on his part, that is to say, that there was no ill-will or spite towards the person against whom he made the imputation. What must ultimately be decided is the honesty of the accused in publishing the words complained of. So also the accused are not entitled to exception 9 of S. 499, I.P.C. merely on the reason that the publications were not made in good faith. 9. There is no evidence to show that these two accused persons have made due enquiries and satisfied themselves regarding the genuineness and truthfulness of the allegations made in the original petitions. The accused persons have rightly been convicted by the Addl. Sessions Judge. 10. In C.C. 1/86 the accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. The accused persons have rightly been convicted by the Addl. Sessions Judge. 10. In C.C. 1/86 the accused has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months. I reduce the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months to one month's simple imprisonment. 11. In C.C. 2/86 the sentence against the accused is simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. I reduce the sentence from 3 month's simple imprisonment to one month's simple imprisonment. With the above modification in sentence the criminal appeal and the revision petition are disposed of. Order accordingly.