Judgment :- 1. At admission stage, the parties agreed to make their submissions on the petition. Therefore, rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard on merits. 2. The petitioner No.1 holds a licence, issued by the State Excise Department, for conducting business of liquor shop, at Savda, Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon. The petitioner No.2 is the petitioner No.1's husband and is working in the shop of liquor as a servant. The respondent No.2 was working as Sub-Inspector, State Excise Department, and while doing his duty, on 12th November, 2006, he visited the liquor shop, and he discovered some irregularities in the maintenance of record of the shop. Accordingly, on the very day, he made a report to the Collector against the petitioner No.1. On 14th November, 2006, both the petitioners suo-moto went before the Collector and submitted their explanation in the form of a joint affidavit (henceforth be called the affidavit). They explained, as to what had happened on 12th November, 2006, at their liquor shop. They alleged in the affidavit that the respondent No.2 came to their shop in drunken condition, demanded Rs. 5,000/- as bribe and threatened action against them. They also alleged in the affidavit that the respondent No.2 habitually came to their shop for demanding free liquor bottles. They said that the respondent No.2 threatened them that he would see that the licence would be canceled. 3. Pursuant to the report of the respondent No.2, the Collector issued show-cause-notice to the petitioner No.1. But before the Collector could decide further action, it seems, the department of the respondent No.2 took cognizance of the contents of the affidavit and initiated departmental action against him. On 20th November, 2006, a show-cause-notice of departmental inquiry was issued against the respondent No.2. It seems, during the course of the departmental inquiry, the Superintendent of State Excise Department visited the petitioners' shop and recorded certain statements of the petitioner No.1. In this statement, the petitioner No.1 stated that on 12th November, 2006, she was not present in the shop, but her husband was present. During the course of the inquiry initiated against the respondent No.2, the case ultimately reached the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, and, it seems, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise exonerated the respondent No.2 of the allegations made against him. During the course of the inquiry initiated against the respondent No.2, the case ultimately reached the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, and, it seems, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise exonerated the respondent No.2 of the allegations made against him. Thereafter, Deputy Commissioner of Excise sent a letter to the Collector, before whom the inquiry against the petitioners was pending. In this letter, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise stated that the Collector should complete the inquiry and deal with the petitioners strictly. The Collector, thereafter, conducted the inquiry and concluded the same on 20th May, 2008. Though the Collector held that the petitioners had committed irregularities in maintaining the record of the liquor shop, and on account of such irregularities, though he ordered the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, he did not deal with the allegations made by the petitioners in their affidavit against the respondent No.2. He did not record, as to whether the allegations made in the affidavit were false or otherwise. It is after this, on 2nd September, 2008, the respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon against the petitioners alleging that due to the contents of the affidavit of the petitioners dated 13th November, 2006, he suffered defamation, and so, he alleged offence punishable under Sections 500 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon, issued process against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this order of issuance of process before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, who dismissed the revision application. The main contention of the petitioners was and is that their case would be covered under Exceptions 8 and 9 of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 499 reads as under : "499. 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 case hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. 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 case hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Explanation 1 - It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2 - It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3 - An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4 - 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 character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in both some state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful." "Eighth Exception - Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person - 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. Ninth Exception - Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests - It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person or for the public good." The learned Sessions Judge, however, rejected the contention of the petitioners, and held that they would be able to establish their defence only during trial, and so, process cannot be quashed. The question, therefore is, whether on the face of it, the petitioners are protected by Exceptions eighth and ninth of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The question, therefore is, whether on the face of it, the petitioners are protected by Exceptions eighth and ninth of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. I have narrated the facts which led the petitioners to make the allegations against the respondent No.2. It is clear from the affidavit that the petitioners were aware that the respondent No.2 had lodged the report against them before the Collector. They submitted the affidavit in their defence to such a report. The respondent No.2 also admitted this fact in his complaint. As said above, the Collector without making any reference to the allegations made in the affidavit, concluded the case and penalized the petitioners. 4. Unfortunately for the respondent No.2, his department used the affidavit to initiate departmental inquiry against him. The petitioners never intended this repercussion arising from their affidavit, which they filed before the Collector. Though, ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise exonerated the respondent No.2 from the departmental inquiry and though the letter of the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) dated 6th February, 2008 indicated his opinion that the petitioners made a false affidavit to pressurize the respondent No.2, in absence of the reasons for coming to this conclusion being brought before the Court, it cannot be held that the Deputy Commissioner has specifically recorded a finding that the petitioners' affidavit dated 13th November, 2006 contained false statements. 5. Shri. Sawant, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 tried to bring to my notice the statement of the petitioner No.1 recorded on 30th December, 2006. This statement, obviously, was recorded during the course of the Departmental Enquiry against the respondent No.2. In this statement, the petitioners stated that on 12th November, 2006, she was not present in the shop, but she stated in the affidavit that her husband, the petitioner No.2, was present in the shop. Mr. Sawant, taking advantage of the admission of the petitioner No.1 that she was not present in her shop on 12th November, 2006, tried to convince me that the petitioner No.2 had made a false statement in the affidavit. I think, this conclusion of Mr. Sawant is rather myopic. The affidavit is not filed by the petitioner No.1 alone, but it is the affidavit of both the petitioners No.1 and 2. It is a joint affidavit, and so, whatever is stated in the affidavit, can certainly be attributed to the petitioner No.2. I think, this conclusion of Mr. Sawant is rather myopic. The affidavit is not filed by the petitioner No.1 alone, but it is the affidavit of both the petitioners No.1 and 2. It is a joint affidavit, and so, whatever is stated in the affidavit, can certainly be attributed to the petitioner No.2. The contents and so called finding in the letter of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 6th February, 2008, cannot become basis for the present complaint because as stated above the petitioners never intended to get the D.E. started against the respondent. And as said above the Dy. Commissioner's observation was not pertaining to the proceeding which was pending before the collector. The petitioners had made the accusation against the respondent No.2 to the Collector, who admittedly had lawful authority over him. It is also clear that they made this accusation for protecting their interest in the licence in question. The question now is, whether they made these accusations in the good faith. Since the Collector did not hold that they made accusations in bad faith one may safely assume that the accusations were made in good faith. The reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam (1999) 3 SCC 134 ) is not proper, in view of the facts of this case. As indicated above, the petitioners never intended that their affidavit would be used as material against the respondent No.2 for initiating departmental inquiry. All that they were intending was to defend their interest in the proceeding, which the respondent No.2 started against them before the Collector. Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.A. Rumugam V. Kittu alias Krishnamoorthy (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 101). In the facts of that case, the Supreme Court held that for the purpose of bringing case within the purview of the Exceptions 8 and 9, it was necessary for the accused to prove good faith and it could be done only during the trial. The Supreme Court refused to set aside the order of issuance of process. The facts of the reported case are different than the case in hand. 6. There appears one more lacuna in the prosecution case. The petitioners did not publish the contents of the affidavit. The Supreme Court refused to set aside the order of issuance of process. The facts of the reported case are different than the case in hand. 6. There appears one more lacuna in the prosecution case. The petitioners did not publish the contents of the affidavit. They filed it before the appropriate authority who would deal with complaint against them. Had the affidavit not been utilised for the D.E. against the respondent, there was probably no publication of it contents. The publicity given to the contents of the affidavit was not intended by the petitioners. Whether the officers of the department could have used the contents of the affidavit for initiating the D.E. is not required to be examined here. The petition should, therefore, succeed. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'. Rule made absolute.