Judgment : M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners 1 to 9 have filed this application under Section 482 cr. P. C. praying for the quashing of the private complaint filed by the respondent against them, which was taken on file by the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate. George Town in C. C. No. 7899/98 for the offence under Section 500 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE main ground of attack on the entertainment of the complaint for the offence under Section 500 I. P. C. is that demanding for the election by activists of the various Unions through impugned publication would not give rise to the action for defamation and that this complaint was filed belatedly though the alleged publication was made on 4-8-1998 and that the present complaint has been filed after filing of the suit in C. S. No. 693 of 1998 in this Court in respect of the same allegation. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the counsel for the petitioners in any event the complaint is not valid since there are no specific averments as against each of the petitioners with reference to the act of defamation and the complaint suffers from the bereft of even minimum particulars which attract the offence of defamation. ( 4 ) PER contra the counsel for the complainant the respondent herein would submit that the contents of the pamphlets published in the present case would make out a prima-facie case as the accusation contained therein was per se defamation and as such the complaint is valid and the application for quashing is liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) I have carefully considered the rival contentions. ( 6 ) SECTION 499 I. P. C. provided thus: defamation.-Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or, publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereafter excepted, to defame that person. ( 7 ) A reading of the section would reveal that whoever publishes any imputation concerning any person with the intention to harm or with knowledge that such imputation Will harm the reputation of the said person, he commits defamation. ( 7 ) A reading of the section would reveal that whoever publishes any imputation concerning any person with the intention to harm or with knowledge that such imputation Will harm the reputation of the said person, he commits defamation. ( 8 ) THE accusation levelled against the petitioners in the complaint by the respondent is that the complainant being the General Secretary bf the Ennore Foundries Employees Union having been consecutively elected as General Secretary for several terms is being defamed by the act of the accused by pasting posters in front of the Company stating that the complainant amazed wealth illegally to the tune of two crores after cheating the labourers by being a hire-ling for the Management of Ennore Foundries Company. The impugned publication is as follows: (Matter in other language) ( 9 ) A reading of the above imputation would reveal that the names of the accused have not been mentioned, though that of the various unions have been mentioned. The whole reading of the complaint also would not give the details as to how the petitioners were responsible for the: said publication of the imputation. ( 10 ) ACCUSING a person by saying that he is representing a particular Union merely because that Unions name is given in the imputation may not be sufficient to fasten the criminal liability on the accused persons. ( 11 ) THE section does require the intention or knowledge of the person to defame the complainant. Admittedly, in the complaint there is no averment stating that these petitioners are responsible for the said publication of imputation on behalf of the respective Unions. ( 12 ) WHERE a complaint is lodged under Section 500 I. P. C. against the person representing a particular Union on whose behalf of publication of imputation was made, it must be stated that the said person had knowledge of the contents of the publication and published the same with intention to defame the person. ( 13 ) IN the absence of those details in the complaint, the petitioners cannot be summoned to Court to face the proceedings under Section 500 I. P. C. merely by stating that they are the representatives of the respective Unions. ( 13 ) IN the absence of those details in the complaint, the petitioners cannot be summoned to Court to face the proceedings under Section 500 I. P. C. merely by stating that they are the representatives of the respective Unions. Therefore, I find it extremely difficult to accede to the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that the same would be established during the course of trial, particularly when the basic averment With reference to the role played by each of the petitioners is conspicuously absent in the complaint. Hence, the proceedings are quashed. ( 14 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. Consequently, no separate orders are necessary if Cr1. M. P. Nos. 1054 and 1055 of 1999. Petition allowed.