JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey and P.K. Musahary, JJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2006 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh in Money Suit No. 140/2003 filed by the appellant as plaintiff, dismissing the same. 2. The plaintiff-appellant instituted Money Suit No. 3/1997 in the learned Court below claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 3 crores with interest against the present respondent as defendant contending inter alia that the defendant-respondent has lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Zero on 18.9.1997 with copy to the Chief Minister; Chief Secretary; Commissioner (Vigilance); Secretary, PHE Department; and to the CBI, making defamatory statement to the effect that the plaintiff, a Government servant, is corrupt and amassed a huge fortune by corrupt means and also an encroacher of the Government land. It has further been pleaded in the plaint that because of such false and baseless allegations the plaintiff's reputation in the society has been lowered in the estimation of the public, as he belongs to a highly respectable family of Zero. 3. The defendant-respondent, on receipt of the summons, entered appearance and filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff-appellant, but admitting lodging of the complaint dated 18.9.1997 by him before the Deputy Commissioner, Zero. The defendant-respondent, however, has stated that the application dated 18.9.1997 being a complaint before the competent authority relating to the conduct of a public officer, the contents of such complaint cannot constitute defamation. It has also been pleaded in the said written statement that reading of the entire complaint petition as a whole transpires that the defendant has stated that the plaintiff-appellant might have constructed the huge building by corrupt means. According to the defendant-respondent, such statement cannot be termed as defamatory and in any case the reputation of the plaintiff-appellant in the estimation of the general public has not been lowered. The further stand taken in the written statement is that there was no publication of the complaint dated 18.9.1997 as the same has been lodged with the competent authority, namely the Deputy Commissioner and it is the plaintiff-appellant who had caused the publication of such complaint. 4. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the money suit is maintainable and triable by the Court in present form? 2. 4. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the money suit is maintainable and triable by the Court in present form? 2. Whether there is any cause of action against defendant? 3. Whether defendant had a right to lodge complaint to different authorities? 4. Whether defendant had right to lodge a complaint to Deputy Commissioner, Zero to cancel the land Plot 79 or not? 5. Whether the action of defendant amounts to defamation or not? 6. Whether two pleadings were filed on the same issue and with different statement or not? 5. The plaintiff-appellant to substantiate the claim for damages for the alleged defamatory statement examined 7 witnesses, namely the plaintiff himself (PW 1), Sri Michi Laling (PW 2), Sri Liagi Tapa (PW 3), Sri Leegang Tachang (PW 4), Shri Tage Tada (PW 5), Shri Tage Tado (PW 6) and Shri Bamin Nime (PW 7). The defendant-respondent examined himself as DW 1. All the witnesses were duly cross-examined by the respective parties. The plaintiff-appellant has also proved the complaint dated 18.9.1997 lodged by the defendant-respondent before the Deputy Commissioner, which has been marked as Ext. P/1. The defendant-respondent has proved the plaintiff's signature at page-3 of the plaint filed subsequently, which has been marked as Ext. D/1 and also a cutting of a newspaper. "The Arunachal Times" marked as M. Ext. D/1. 6. The learned Court below vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2006 dismissed the suit on the ground that there being no previous criminal proceeding instituted by the defendant-respondent, where the plaintiff-appellant is acquitted or discharged, no decree can be passed, the suit being in the nature of malicious prosecution. 7. We have heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant as well as Mr. Tony Pertin, learned Counsel for the defendant-respondent. 8. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, referring to the complaint dated 18.9.1997 (Ext. P/1), has submitted that it is apparent from the said complaint that the defendant-respondent has made false and baseless allegation against the plaintiff-appellant by describing him as a corrupt officer and also an encroacher of the Government land, which lowered his reputation as an honest officer, in the estimation of public. According to Mr. P/1), has submitted that it is apparent from the said complaint that the defendant-respondent has made false and baseless allegation against the plaintiff-appellant by describing him as a corrupt officer and also an encroacher of the Government land, which lowered his reputation as an honest officer, in the estimation of public. According to Mr. Mazumdar, since the defendant has admitted lodging of the complaint dated 18.9.1997 before Deputy Commissioner, it amounts to publication of defamatory statement contained therein and therefore, the plaintiff, in fact, need not prove that his prestige or reputation in the estimation of the general public has been lowered. It has also been submitted that since the defendant has admitted the writing of such libelous statement, the burden lies on him to prove that such statement is true and since the defendant has failed to substantiate the same, the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to a decree for damages. Mr. Mazumdar submits that the learned Court below has dismissed the suit on incorrect appreciation of law in holding that the suit is in the nature of malicious prosecution, though the plaintiff filed the suit for damages against the defendant for making defamatory statement. Referring to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in S.N.M. Abdi v. Prafulla Kr. Mahanta and Ors., (2001) 3 GLT 427, it was been submitted that the plaintiff in a suit for damages for publication of defamatory statement, need not show that the imputation prejudiced him in the eye of everyone in the community or all of his associates, but it is suffice to establish that the publication tends to lower him in the estimation of a substantial, respectable group, even though they are a minority of the total community or of the plaintiff's associates. Referring to the depositions of the PW 2 to PW 7, Mr. Mazumdar submits that the plaintiff by examining those witnesses could establish that his reputation and prestige has been lowered in the estimation of the public and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages. Placing reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Deepak Kumar Biswas v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. Mazumdar submits that the plaintiff by examining those witnesses could establish that his reputation and prestige has been lowered in the estimation of the public and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for damages. Placing reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court in Deepak Kumar Biswas v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (2006) 2 GLT 64, it has also been submitted that when a defamatory statement has a tendency to injure the reputation of a person to whom it refers to i.e., whose reputation is lowered in the estimation of right thinking members of the society in general and in particular to cause him to be regarded with feelings with hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear, dislike, disesteem, the Court is bound to pass a decree for damages and in the instant case, since the plaintiff by adducing evidence could prove the same, the learned Court below ought to have decreed the suit for damages and ought not to have dismissed the same on the ground that the same is in the nature of malicious prosecution. 9. Mr. Tony Pertin, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the learned Court below has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant, though the ground may not be valid, as lodging of the complaint by the defendant, who is a member of the public to a public authority, to make an enquiry against the plaintiff, who is a Government servant, relating to amassing property disproportionate to his known source of income, cannot be termed as defamatory. It has further been submitted that in fact there is no publication of such statement, even if the same is defamatory, as the complaint was lodged before the competent authority for making enquiry. It has also been submitted that a reading of the whole complaint dated 18.9.1997 (Ext. P/1) reveals that the defendant wanted to project that there is reasonable suspicion of indulging in corrupt practices by the plaintiff as he has constructed a huge building over Government land and, being a conscious citizen, it is the duty of the defendant to bring the encroachment of Government land, by any person including the plaintiff, to the notice of the competent authority, hence, the complaint dated 18.9.2009 cannot be termed as defamatory. According to the learned Counsel, it is the plaintiff who had brought out the complaint dated 18.9.1997 from the office of the Deputy Commissioner and circulated the same amongst the public and not the defendant, therefore, the learned Court below has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below as well as the evidence on record. 11. The learned Court below has decided the Issue No. 1 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant by taking a wrong view of the matter, as it has been held that the suit is not maintainable, the same being in the nature of malicious prosecution, which requires institution of a previous criminal proceeding where the plaintiff is acquitted. The plaintiff can under the law maintain a suit for damages against the defendant for making any defamatory statement. It is not necessary for such a suit, that there has to be a criminal proceeding instituted against the plaintiff by the defendant, where he has been acquitted or discharged. The present suit being the suit for damages for making the alleged defamatory statement and not being the suit for damages for malicious prosecution, the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned Court below that the suit is not maintainable cannot be sustained in law and hence set aside. 12. Issue No. 2 i.e., whether there is any cause of action for the suit, has also been decided by the learned Court below against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. The learned Trial Court has held that since the intention of the defendant was to lodged complaint before the concerned Government authority, requesting necessary enquiry regarding the alleged corrupt practices of the plaintiff in amassing property disproportionate to his known source of income and encroachment of Government land, there is no cause of action for filing the suit. The cause of action means the bundle of facts which give rise to enforcement of the legal injury or redress in a Court of law. Such bundle of facts must be proved by the plaintiff in order to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. The cause of action means the bundle of facts which give rise to enforcement of the legal injury or redress in a Court of law. Such bundle of facts must be proved by the plaintiff in order to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. In the plaint, the plaintiff alleges making defamatory statement against him by the defendant in the complaint dated 18.9.1997 lodged before the Deputy Commissioner and has prayed for a decree for damages and as such, it cannot be said that the plaintiff did not have the cause of action to institute the suit. From the pleadings in the plaint it transpires that the plaintiff had the cause of action, which arose on 18.9.1997, i.e., the date on which the complaint was filed by the defendant allegedly making defamatory statement. The finding of the learned Court below in regard to the issue No. 2, is also therefore, not sustainable in law and hence set aside. 13. Issue Nos. 3 to 5 being related to each other, which issues have also been decided by the learned Court below against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant, are taken up together for consideration. 14. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim for damages has proved the complaint lodged by the defendant before the Deputy Commissioner on 18.9.1997 (Ext. P/1), besides examining 7 witnesses including himself, to demonstrate that his reputation in the situation of public has been lowered because of the defamatory made by the defendant in such complaint alleging that the plaintiff is a corrupt officer and also an encroacher of the Government land. The lodging of the complaint dated 18.9.1997 by the defendant is not in dispute, rather the defendant has admitted the same contending that since the complaint has been lodged before the competent authority suspecting amass of huge property by corrupt means; such statement is not defamatory and in any case the same being a complaint lodged to the public authority there is no publication of such statement, even if the same is defamatory in nature. 15. 15. Any words spoken or written would be defamatory, if it exposes the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or oblique or it tend to inure him in his profession or trade i.e., tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of the right thinking members of the society in general or cause him to be shunned or avoided by his neighbours. To succeed in a suit for damages, the plaintiff, therefore, is required to prove, firstly, that there is a statement made against him which is defamatory, which tends to lower him in the estimation of the right thinking members of the society generally and such statement must be published. It is, however, not necessary to establish that such imputation has prejudiced him in the eyes of everyone in the community or all his associates, but it is suffice to establish that the publication tends to lower him in the estimation of a substantial, respectable group, even though they are a minority of the total community or of the plaintiff's associates, as observed by a Division Bench of this Court in S.N.M. Abdi (supra) and a Single Bench of this Court in Deepak Kumar Biswas (supra). A defamatory statement is one which has a tendency to injure the reputation of the person to whom it refers to and which tends to lower him in the estimation of the right thinking members of the society generally and in particular to cause him to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, dislike or disesteem. 16. Every man has the right to have his reputation preserved. The right of reputation is acknowledged an inherent personal right of every person. A man's reputation is his property, which is more valuable than the other property. Therefore, if any one infringes such right of a person, he is liable for his action. Though every person has the fundamental right of freedom of speech, the law relating to defamation is a reasonable restrain on such fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. As noticed above, the plaintiff to succeed in a suit for damages for making defamatory statement has to prove that such statement has been published and it tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of the right thinking members of the society generally. As noticed above, the plaintiff to succeed in a suit for damages for making defamatory statement has to prove that such statement has been published and it tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of the right thinking members of the society generally. The Court in order to come to the finding as to whether a statement is a defamatory statement or not has to read the entire statement as a whole and the words used in it are to be given natural or ordinary meaning which may be ascribed to them by ordinary men. It may be that the impression is created by one part of the statement that it is defamatory but that would not be enough, for the statement has to be taken as a whole. 17. Communicating defamatory matter to some person other than the person about whom such statement is written, amounts to publication of such defamatory statement. Publication should be made to others with intention to defame some other persons. Even under certain circumstances statement sent to the person about whom it is written, may amounts to publication, e.g. if the defamatory matter is transmitted in a telegram or written on a postcard and addressed to the person against whom such statement is made. The words complained of, therefore, must be communicated to some person other than the person against whom such statement is made. In the instant case, the complaint has been lodged with the Deputy Commissioner by the defendant alleging something. As soon as such complaint has been lodged it amounts to publication of such statement, which may or may not be defamatory. The contention of the defendant that there is no publication of such statement cannot, therefore, be accepted. 18. We shall now proceed to examine whether there is any defamatory statement made in the said complaint dated 18.9.1997 (Annexure-P/1) against the plaintiff. For better appreciation, the said complaint dated 18.9.1997 is quoted below: To The Deputy Commissioner, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro (AP). Dated, the 18th Sept., 97. Sub : Cancellation of Allotment of the Plot of Land No. 79 at Papoli and in verifying source of construction of the Frontier School Comples. Sir, With due respect I beg to inform you that I have a plot of land measuring an area about 1170 Sqmtres, situated at Hepoli near Frontier School bounded by: NORTH : Frontier School. Sub : Cancellation of Allotment of the Plot of Land No. 79 at Papoli and in verifying source of construction of the Frontier School Comples. Sir, With due respect I beg to inform you that I have a plot of land measuring an area about 1170 Sqmtres, situated at Hepoli near Frontier School bounded by: NORTH : Frontier School. SOUTH : Frontier School. EAST : Land of Shri Buru Byai. WEST : Frontier School. Which is under my exclusive physical possession since 1990 but one Shri Liagi Miri S/o Late Liagi Talo, owner of the Frontier School Hapoli has encroached a portion of my land on the West side of my land and constructed a private residence, I objected the construction and also demolished half of the concrete walls, posts etc. But Shri Liagi Miri came to my residence and told me that he would demolish the remaining portion of the construction which however he did not. 1. That the said Frontier School which my information reveals has established being at present under rapid construction process belongs to said Shri Liagi Miri who is at present serving as Engineering Officer having place of posting in the Office of the Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2. That said Liagi Miri who owned and possessed only about 200 Sqmtrs of land being Plot No. 79 the present occupied land under the said Frontier School is more than 6416.50 Sqmtrs such enlargement of the area which appears to be illegal in view of making clean encroachment of the Government land nearby. The Frontiner School for being not within the Commercial busy area said Liagi Miri found to have taken advantage of the land of Government pattern and day by day more encroachment and construction undertaking works gone at war footing. 3. That it is no doubt to say that said Liagi Miri who stated as Junior Engineer in R.W.D. and the earning from the salary only the source of income, the source of such rapid construction in the nature of multi-story building for the School and Boarding purposes attributed reasonable suspicion of corruption. 4. 3. That it is no doubt to say that said Liagi Miri who stated as Junior Engineer in R.W.D. and the earning from the salary only the source of income, the source of such rapid construction in the nature of multi-story building for the School and Boarding purposes attributed reasonable suspicion of corruption. 4. That said Liagi Miri for being a Government servant and for thee being no any other source of income in the non-declaration of yearly statement for the assets accumulated/earned by a Gazetted Officer to the Government/Employer, such construction no doubt from the source of corruption and violation of the conduct rule as levied by the Government. 5. That said Liagi Mir taking advantage of ignorance of the District Administration Authority at Ziro now stated to have submitted the application for due allotment of the whole plot of land including those under his illegal occupation and which already earmarked for necessary Government quarters etc. constructions. Even he has constructed his private residence over the Government Septic Tanki. 6. That here I am to state that said Liagi Miri taking advantage of my busy with my profession at Itanagar also found to encroach a portion of my land erecting illegal concrete wall and premises. That suddenly I being owner of such illegal construction about a year before, I happened to demolish a part of such walls, posts etc. that stand and erected over my plot of land. He being aware as to such demolition requested me coming at my residence at Naharlagun and voluntarily agreed to remove out all such illegal construction from my plot of land. But to the breach of his promist and assurance and delaying the matter on flee of this and that as information reveals to me, now his said application for allotment also shown my area as under his undisputed possession. 7. That said Liagi Miri who on the one hand doing construction out of corrupt means of earning as on the other hand found to have willfully trying to mislead the Government for the purpose of his wrongful gain involving thereby to do miscarriage of justice to the boundaries people like me and also encroachment of the other Government and private land. 8. That to our end to root out corruption now became a major issue of the Government of India in this 50th Anniversary of Independence. 8. That to our end to root out corruption now became a major issue of the Government of India in this 50th Anniversary of Independence. Therefore, it requires not to indulge such person like Liagi Miri to fulfill his criminal gain and motive which he intend to fulfill taking advantage of your good office and the Government of A.P. in getting allotment of the land in the manner as aforestated. 9. That the present submission of application for allotment of plot of land to area and size over which the Frontier School, Ziro stand being a purely disputed land requires not only verification but also spot inspection with due prior notice and in present of all boundary persons residing having interest and scrutiny of the proper Government records having strict vigilance. If, without making any such verification and through spot inspection, the allotment be done, it will be great injustice to the neighbours residing by the boundary of Frontiner School, Zero. Further, after spot inspection, as and when it shall reveal, that said Liagi Miri by way of illegal encroachment has done, illegal construction and if such illegal constructions be not demolished for the purpose to vacate illegal occupation then it be again an inspiration to a officer like Liagi Miri to indulge more into corruption. In the conclusion; with the word the said illegal constructions which shall be worth more than 10(ten) crores, further requires proper investigation or the purpose to ascertain the source of such huge earnings. Submitted for your favourable action. Yours faithfully, (MUDANG BUTT) Copy to: 1. The Chief Minister, Arunachal Pradesh for information and necessary action. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government to Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, for information and necessary action please. 3. The Commissioner, Vigilance, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, for necessary inquiry please. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Shillong, for information with request for due investigation. 5. The Secretary, Public, Health Engineering Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, for information and necessary action. Sd/- (MUDANG BUTT) Camp-Naharlagun. 19. It appears from the complaint that the defendant has expressed his reasonable suspicion of plaintiff being a corrupt officer as he has constructed a huge building by amassing property allegedly disproportionate to his known source of income. A further allegation has also been made relating to encroachment of the Government land. Sd/- (MUDANG BUTT) Camp-Naharlagun. 19. It appears from the complaint that the defendant has expressed his reasonable suspicion of plaintiff being a corrupt officer as he has constructed a huge building by amassing property allegedly disproportionate to his known source of income. A further allegation has also been made relating to encroachment of the Government land. The defendant, therefore, asked the competent authority to make an enquiry into such reasonable doubt in the mind of the defendant. The defendant, however, in some places has mentioned the plaintiff to be a corrupt officer. Since the entire statement has to be read as a whole to ascertain as to whether any defamatory statement has been made by the defendant against the plaintiff or there is any imputation, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has directly imputed something against the plaintiff by saying that he is a corrupt officer, so as to constitute the defamatory words. The defendant being a conscious citizen has every right to express his doubt before the competent authority and requesting such authority to enquire about the same. That apart, even if such statement is defamatory, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove, in a suit claiming damages, that such statement injures his reputation or tends to lower his reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the society generally. 20. PW 1, the plaintiff, in his deposition has stated about lodging of the complaint dated 18.9.1997 (Ext. P/1). He has also stated that he has been looked down by the public as a corrupt officer though he is not a corrupt officer. Such version of the plaintiff, however, has not been supported by the other witnesses examined. PW 2 has stated about the lodging of the complaint by the defendant with the Deputy Commissioner, Zero. This witness, however, has not stated that in his estimation the plaintiff's reputation has been lowered because of such statement in such complaint. He, however, has stated that people started to enquire about the defendant's writing of such letter alleging something against the plaintiff. During cross-examination this witness at one time has stated that he has not even read the complaint, which however on re-examination been retracted. PW 3, who is the brother of the plaintiff, has stated that after going through the complaint the people felt that the plaintiff is a corrupt officer. During cross-examination this witness at one time has stated that he has not even read the complaint, which however on re-examination been retracted. PW 3, who is the brother of the plaintiff, has stated that after going through the complaint the people felt that the plaintiff is a corrupt officer. He has, however, not stated that in his estimation the plaintiff's prestige or reputation has been lowered. PW 4, who is also related to the plaintiff being his nephew, has stated in his deposition before the Court that because of such complaint the people starts believing that the plaintiff is really a corrupt person and it was the talk of the town. During cross-examination this witness has stated that he obtained the copy of such complaint from the plaintiff. This witness has also stated during cross-examination that no member of the Frontier School of which the plaintiff is the Chairman believes that the plaintiff is a corrupt person and the plaintiff is still maintaining his esteem and prestige. According to PW 5, the plaintiff has been defamed and he was morally down in the eye of the public because of such defamatory statement. This witness, however, has not stated that the plaintiff's reputation in his estimation has been lowered. Similarly, PW 6 and PW 7 have not stated anything that in their estimation the reputation or prestige of the plaintiff has been lowered because of the allegations in the complaint dated 18.9.1997 (Annexure-P/1). None of the witnesses, except the plaintiff himself, has stated that the plaintiff's prestige or reputation has been lowered or tends to be lowered, in their estimation. These witnesses though have stated that in the eyes of the public the plaintiff's prestige or reputation has been lowered because of the defamatory statement, the plaintiff has failed to examine any witness, in whose estimation the plaintiff's prestige or reputation has been lowered because of the statements in the said complaint. As noticed above, to succeed in a suit for damages for making defamatory statement, the plaintiff has to prove that such statement has lowered or tends to lower his reputation or prestige in the estimation of the public in general or of plaintiff's associates. Hence, no decree can be passed in the suit in hand, as the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove the same. The issue Nos. Hence, no decree can be passed in the suit in hand, as the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove the same. The issue Nos. 3 to 5 are accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant. 21. Issue No. 6 relates to filing of two plaints with different pleadings by the plaintiff. It appears from the records that the original plaint filed by the plaintiff on 27.10.1997 was initially mis-placed. Thereafter, the plaintiff was allowed to file a copy of such plaint and accordingly, a copy of the plaint was filed on 2.3.2000, which, however, was found out to be not the exact copy of the plaint earlier filed. There was some alteration in the pleadings in the 1st sentences of paragraph 5 of the subsequent plaint which has been proved and marked as Ext. D/1. The said alteration, though is not material, as it would not affect the outcome of the suit, but the fact remains that the plaintiff did tried to incorporate something in the pleadings which were not there in the original plaint filed, which came to light when the original plaint was subsequently traced out. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our considered opinion, the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled to any decree, therefore, the suit has rightly been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The decree passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed for the reasons recorded above. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed