Order Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The matter is at the stage of admission. 2. Appellant herein was the complainant before the VI Additional ACMM, Bengaluru, on a private complaint filed under Section 2(d), Cr.P.C. The main complaint before the trial court was that the 1st respondent is an editor and publisher of a monthly newspaper run under the name and style VANASUMA. The 2nd respondent is the printer of the said monthly newspaper. 3. A publication was made in the newspaper VANASUMA on 25.7.2006 making serious allegations against the appellant herein, alleging that she had amassed crores of rupees by way of bribe, being the executive director of Jungle Lodges and Resorts, an undertaking of the Government of Karnataka. She was very much upset with the alleged defamatory article in the newspaper. Hence she got issued a legal notice to the respondents calling upon them to tender an unconditional apology and withdraw the remarks. 4. On receipt of the notice, respondents herein replied contending that no defamatory article was published and whatever was published, was in accordance with the deliberations that took place in the Legislative Council of the State. It is mentioned that the said publication was preceded by two other publications of similar nature and that the discussion in the Legislative Council took placed on the basis of a report submitted by the Comptroller and Auditor General. 5. Being not satisfied, with the reply, appellant chose to file a complaint under Section 2(d), Cr.P.C. and summons were issued to secure the presence of the respondents. Matter was contested. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, complainant has examined herself as PW1 and one of the officials working under her is examined as PW2 7 exhibits were got marked on her behalf and two exhibits on behalf of the accused. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused in regard to the incriminating material from the case of the complainant. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence placed on record, the learned judge has chosen to acquit the accused by a considered order dated 27.5.2015. It is this order which is called in question in this appeal filed under Section 378(2), Cr.P.C. on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo. 7. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence placed on record, the learned judge has chosen to acquit the accused by a considered order dated 27.5.2015. It is this order which is called in question in this appeal filed under Section 378(2), Cr.P.C. on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo. 7. What is argued before this court by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the publication which is marked as Ex.P1 is not in accordance with the deliberations that took place in the Legislative Council in the year 2006 and that she has been unnecessarily projected as notoriously corrupt and has amassed wealth by abusing her position as the executive director of Jungle Lodges and Resorts. It is argued that it is not substantiated in any manner and therefore the article so published is persedefamatory. It is further argued that the learned judge has ignored important documents placed on record like Exs.P6 and P7. According to him, these documents have neither been referred to nor discussed in the impugned judgment. 8. Admittedly the allegation made by the complainant is against the editor and printer of a monthly newspaper run under the name and style VANASUMA which is a part and parcel of the evidence. After going through the records, it is seen that prior to the publication of the alleged defamatory article, a serious debate took place on the floor of the Legislative Council of Karnataka and the alleged illegalities and irregularities committed in Jungle Lodges and Resorts were mentioned by three members of the Council. The said issue was also brought to the notice of the concerned minister. 9. A reference is made in the report marked as Ex.D1 that serious illegalities and irregularities in the functioning of Jungle Lodges and Resorts were noticed by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Even the minister in charge of the said portfolio had assured the chairman of the Council that appropriate action would be taken against the concerned. This is found in page 164 of Ex.D1, report of the deliberations that took place in the Legislative Council for the period from 3.7,2006 to 4.7.2006. The reply given by the minister in charge states that the executive director does not have any power to grant sanction for taking up works in accordance with the memorandum of articles of association of the company. The reply given by the minister in charge states that the executive director does not have any power to grant sanction for taking up works in accordance with the memorandum of articles of association of the company. Therefore the question of violation of the provisions of Karnataka Transparency Act does not arise. After thorough discussion, the Hon’ble chairman of the Legislative Council had assured the members and the English translation of the same is as follows: ‘D.H. Shankar Murthy, Chairman of the Legislative Council. Hon'ble leader of the House has assured that he would take appropriate action on the basis of information that would be made available to him by the Hon'ble members. He has given all types of assurance. Let us now proceed to take up the next matter.' 10. The entire discussion is found in pages 164 to 176 of Ex.D1. It is not as though the alleged publication is without any basis. What is expected of the court is to see whether the allegation so made is illfounded. What exactly should be the approach in a case like this has been well dealt with by a Division Bench of this court in the case of SHIVAGE GOWDA .v. T.NARAYANA & ANOTHER (1968 Crl.L.J. 836) wherein it is held that even if there are some exaggerations in the impugned publication, that does not deprive the protection provided under Section 479, Cr.P.C. Paragraphs 14 to 16 of the said judgment are relevant and are extracted below: 14. Section 499 of the Code defines defamation. It is common ground that the impugned statement published by the accused is per se defamatory and so we have to proceed to deal with the matter on the basis that the said statement would harm the reputation of the complainant. Exception 1 to 3 of 499 provides that 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 the present case, there is satisfactory evidence that the defamatory matter is substantially true. Dr. Parvathimina has stated in her evidence that she read the defamatory matter and her reaction to it was that that was fairly correct. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. IN the present case, there is satisfactory evidence that the defamatory matter is substantially true. Dr. Parvathimina has stated in her evidence that she read the defamatory matter and her reaction to it was that that was fairly correct. She was the person who was attacked by the complainant on both the occasions and therefore she is the best person who could throw light on what happened on the two occasions. The finding of the learned sessions judge on this point is based on propane appreciation of evidence and we find no reason to differ from it. 15. The accused in this case has shown that the defamatory matter is substantially true in regard to the material portion of the allegation or insinuation. It is no doubt ttue that there is some exaggeration ion the impugned publication. That does not deprive the accused of the protection provided in the exception to Sec.499, Pena Code. In Murlidhar Jeramdass .v. Narayana Das AIR 1914 Sind 85, it was pointed out that where in a newspaper report the main aspersion of the accused against the compliment is true, the fact that there is some exaggeration or departure from strict truth does not deprive the amuse of the protection provided in exception 3, Section 499, Penal Code. Mere exaggeration, or even some exaggeration, does not make a comment unfair. Where the matter is of public interest, the court ought not to weigh any comment on it in a fine scale and some allowance must be made for even intemperate language, provided however that the writer keeps himself within the bounds of substantial truth and does not misrepresent or suppress any facts. In this case, the account given I the publication is what occurred in the glass room and also in the house of Dr. Parvathamma and is shown to be substantially true. 16. No amount of truth will justify a libel unless its publication was for the public good. The question whether the publication was or was not for the public good is declared to be a question of fact and it is dependent upon the matter published, the nature, occasion and extent of the publicity and the actual good thereby accomplished. 16. No amount of truth will justify a libel unless its publication was for the public good. The question whether the publication was or was not for the public good is declared to be a question of fact and it is dependent upon the matter published, the nature, occasion and extent of the publicity and the actual good thereby accomplished. We have no doubt in our minds that the publication in this case about the conduct of the complainant on both the occasions was for public good.’ 11. In the case of JAWAHARLAL DARDA & OTHERS v. MANOHARRAO GANAPATRAO KAPSIKAR & ANOTHER ( AIR 1998 SC 2117 ), the Hon'ble apex court has held that if a news item discloses as to what happened in the debate that took place in the Assembly, the publication cannot be considered as persedefamatory. As per the facts of the said case, the name of the complainant had been mentioned as having involved and likely to be suspended in respect of alleged misappropriation of funds. The discussion had taken place on 13.12.1983 on the floor of the Legislative Assembly. Paragraph 4 of the said decision is relevant and is extracted below: ‘As we have stated earlier, the news item was published on 4.2.1984. The complaint in that behalf was filed by the complainant on 2.2.1987. The news item merely disclosed what happened during the debate which took place in the Assembly on 13.12.1983. It stated that when a question regarding misappropriation of Government funds meant for Majalgaon and Jaikwadi was put to the minister concerned, he had replied that a preliminary inquiry was made by th4 Government and it disclosed that some misappropriation had taken place. When questioned further about the names of persons involved, he had stated the names of five persons, including that of the complainant. The said proceedings came to be published by the accused in its daily on 4.2.1984. Because the name of the complainant was mentioned as one of the persons involved and likely to be suspended, he filed a complaint before the learned CJM alleging that as a result of publication of the said report, he had been defamed.’ 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on yet another decision of the Hon'ble apex court in the case of SAHIB SINGH MEHRA .v. STATE OF U.P. ( AIR 1965 SC 1451 ). Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on yet another decision of the Hon'ble apex court in the case of SAHIB SINGH MEHRA .v. STATE OF U.P. ( AIR 1965 SC 1451 ). Exceptions 3 and 9 to Section 499, I.P.C. are discussed. What is held is that a newspaper article containing persedefamatory remarks against public prosecutors and assistant public prosecutors were not indicating that its object was public good. There was no evidence to show that the defamatory remarks were made in good faith and with due care and caution. 13. In the present case, PW1 has been cross-examined at length. Her attention was drawn to the serious debate that took place in the Council and she has admitted the said fact and also the categorical assurance given b the minister in charge and the reference made by three members of the Council and the Chairman. 14. Another decision of a single Bench of this court reported in the case of SUBASH K.SHAH .v. SHANKAR BHAT (ILR 1993 KAR 353) is relied on to contend that ‘the character is what a person is, and reputation is what others think of him. Reputation is one of the most valuable possession sofa person and no one can be deprived of that reputation without a justification in law. Words can be as dangerous as explosives. 'There is no second opinion about the proposition of law. Whether the respondents were diligent enough in publishing the article, is the question. 15. As already referred to above, a serious discussion took place on the floor of the Legislative Council and as many as 3 members had raised this issue and it was brought to the notice of the concerned minister of tourism, and he had assured that all information would be considered. Apart from that, the report of the CAG relating to serious illegalities and irregularities that took place in Jungle Lodges and Resorts was also the basis for such serious discussion in the Legislative Council. Suffice to state that the learned judge has relied on all important admissions elicited from the mouth of material witnesses, i.e. PW1. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble apex court in the case of JAWAHAR (supra) and of this court in the case of SHIVAGE GOWDA (supra), no good grounds are made out to admit the appeal. Suffice to state that the learned judge has relied on all important admissions elicited from the mouth of material witnesses, i.e. PW1. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble apex court in the case of JAWAHAR (supra) and of this court in the case of SHIVAGE GOWDA (supra), no good grounds are made out to admit the appeal. The learned judge has adopted right approach to the real state of affairs and no perversity or illegality is found in the impugned order calling for interference. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.