JUDGMENT AND ORDER : R.R. Prasad, J. This Criminal Petition is directed against the order dated 17.9.2014 passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East in Cril. Revision case No.3/14 whereby and where under the order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the CJM, Imphal West taking cognisable against the respondent for the offence punishable u/s 500 of the IPC was set aside. 2. Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of. 3. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant being proprietor of M/s Lairikyengbam Enterprise was engaged in manufacturing drinking water in the brand name of "YES". However, the commissioner, Food Safety-cum-Principal Secretary (Health & Family Welfare) Department, Govt. of Manipur passed an order on 25.3.2013 putting a ban over selling of said product as it was not having certification of Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) and at the same time it had never been printed in the level as PACKAGED DRINKING WATER. Subsequently, when the complainant did get certification from BIS and put a declaration over the product as Packaged Drinking Water, the Commissioner, Food Safety revoked the order of ban on 9.10.2013. After revocation, the said product was being sold in the market. Thereupon, a publication was made in the local daily, "Poknapham" on 11.10.2013 with respect to resale of the said product after having certification from BIS. In spite of that ISTV flashed the news on 26.10.2013 that the banned packaged drinking water (YES) were found being sold in the market. On the following day, even the local daily, "The Sangai Express" published a news item to the effect that a shop was found selling unlicensed packaged drinking water bottle (YES) which has been banned for not having necessary certification. Upon such publication, the complainant produced the document relating to certification before the Editor of the ' The Sangai Express' and thereby the said Newspaper in its Edition of 28.10.2013 published news item that there has been no ban in selling of 'YES' drinking water. Upon such publication, the complainant produced the document relating to certification before the Editor of the ' The Sangai Express' and thereby the said Newspaper in its Edition of 28.10.2013 published news item that there has been no ban in selling of 'YES' drinking water. Still on 31.10.2013 a local daily, namely "Naharolgi Thoudang' published news item at the instance of the accused/respondent to the effect given below: "The brand name 'YES' Packed Drinking Water has been banned in the month of March 2013 and for selling of YES Packaged Drinking Water in the market without the approval by the Directorate of Health Services, Manipur can be put to jail and that 'YES' Packaged Drinking Water has not yet obtained ISI and that it does not fulfil hygienic requirement and as such drinking of same may be harmful to health." It is the case of the complainant that the accused being a Deputy Commissioner, Food Safety was quite aware of the fact relating to lifting of ban. Still the news item was published at his instance only to tarnish or to malign the prestige of the complaint-petitioner. 3.1 To the aforesaid effect, a complaint petition was filed before the Court of CJM, Imphal West who vide its order dated 29.11.2013 took cognizance of offence punishable u/s 500 of the IPC. That order was challenged by the accused-petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge who vide impugned order set aside the order taking cognizance by holding that prosecution in absence of any sanction being accorded u/s 197 of the CrPC is bad. Further, the Court on putting reliance a document (Annexure-A/5 to this application) an order dated 2.11.2013 issued by Chief Medical Officer/Designated Officer Food Safety to the Director of health Services, Govt. of Manipur to the effect that the office has not issued any licence to the proprietor for selling drinking water printed as 'YES' and also on the other document, a memorandum dated 4.12.2013 (Annexure-A/6 to the application) issued by the Director, Health Services Manipur intimating all Chief Medical Officers/Designated Officers to seize the said product as no licence has been issued to the complainant firm, did hold that whatever the accused/respondent did he did it bonafidely with a view to save health and life of common man from hazardous and spurious food and thereby not liable to be prosecuted in view of exception 9 and 10 to Section 499. Accordingly, order taking cognizance was set aside. 4. Being aggrieved with that order, the complainant petitioner has filed this petition for setting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. Mr. Mahira, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, did submit that offence punishable for defamation was committed by the respondent accused on 31.10.2013 when at the instance of the accused/respondent a news item was published to the effect that Packaged Drinking Water in the brand name of 'YES' has been banned though earlier on 9.10.2013 ban which had been put in earlier was revoked and to that effect even a publication was made in the newspaper on 11.10.2013 but the learned Session Judge putting reliance on the document dated 2.11.2013 (Annexure-A/5) and dated 4.12.2013 (Annexure-A/6), which documents came into existence after the offence of defamation was committed, came to the conclusion that the publication was never intentional and was not made to malign the prestige of the complainant whereby he committed a gross illegality as those documents coming in existence later than the offence committed, should not have been taken into account at the stage of revision. Further, it was submitted that even, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that those documents can be taken into account for the defence of the accused; those documents could have been the relevant materials during trial but not at the stage of revision. Thereby, the revisional court committed a gross illegality and hence impugned order is fit to be set aside. 6. As against this, Mr. Rakesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused did submit that those documents, though it came into existence after the alleged commission of offence, still it go to show that the accused/respondent had no knowledge of lifting of the ban and thereby whatever statement taken to be defamatory, has been published that was published under the impression that ban has not been lifted and thereby it was quite unintentional and hence revisional court was absolutely justified in setting aside the order taking cognizance. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, I do find that the learned Revisional court has set aside the order taking cognizance on two grounds, one being the order taking cognizance is bad on account of valid sanction being not there for prosecuting the accused/respondent, a public servant. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, I do find that the learned Revisional court has set aside the order taking cognizance on two grounds, one being the order taking cognizance is bad on account of valid sanction being not there for prosecuting the accused/respondent, a public servant. On this ground virtually there has been no submission neither there appears to be any statement or ground to assail the order. 8. Be that as it may, it be stated that the said issue as to whether sanction for prosecution in terms of section 197 of Cr. PC is required for prosecuting a public servant for the offence of defamation, fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Matojog Dubey v. H.C. Bharti 1995 (2) SCR 925 wherein it has been held as under: "There must be reasonable connection between the act and discharge of official duty, the act must bear such relation to duty that the accused could lay a reasonable but not a pretended or fanciful claim that he did it in the course of performance of duty." 9. Admittedly, the petitioner, a Deputy Commissioner, Food Safety got the news item published when he found the said product of Packaged Drinking Water (YES) being sold when earlier there was a ban on its selling. If the accuse/respondent was not knowing about the ban being lifted, he was duty bound to make it public so that people be warned of purchasing it on account of some defects. Under the circumstances, I do find that whatever the petitioner did he did it in discharge of his public duty and thereby learned Session Judge was quite justified in holding that prosecution of the accused/respondent in absence of valid sanction u/s 197 of Cr. PC is bad. 10. Coming to the other aspect of the matter, it be stated that the submission was advanced on behalf of the petitioner that in order to establish good faith, documents, which in the present case came into existence after the commission of the offence, cannot be taken into account. However, according to the respondent, whatever accused/respondent did he did it in good faith which would not make him liable to be prosecuted for the offence of defamation in view of exception 9 and 10 to section 499 of the IPC. However, according to the respondent, whatever accused/respondent did he did it in good faith which would not make him liable to be prosecuted for the offence of defamation in view of exception 9 and 10 to section 499 of the IPC. The 9th and 10th exceptions to Section 499 reads as follows: "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 interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. Tenth Exception: - Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for pubic good.- It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some persons in whom that person is interested, or for the public good." 11. Now the question does arise as to what the word 'good faith' denotes. One needs not to go far away to find out the true import of word 'good faith' as it has been defined in Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows: "S.52: Nothing is said to be done or believed in 'good faith' which is done or believed without due care and attention." On going through the said provision it does appear that an act is only done in good faith if it is done with care and attention. The phrase 'due care and attention' implies genuine effort to reach the truth and not the ready acceptance of ill-natured belief. When a question arises as to whether a person acted in good faith, then it devolves upon him to show not merely that he had a good intention but that he exercised such care and skill as the duty reasonably demanded for its due discharge. The question has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case having regard to the nature of imputation made; the circumstances on which it came to be made and status of the person who makes the imputation as also the status of the person against whom the imputation is allegedly made. The question has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case having regard to the nature of imputation made; the circumstances on which it came to be made and status of the person who makes the imputation as also the status of the person against whom the imputation is allegedly made. These and host of other consideration would be relevant and required to be considered for deciding the plea of good faith. In other words, in order to establish good faith and bona fide it has to be seen firstly the circumstances under which a letter was written or words were uttered; secondly whether there was any malice; thirdly whether the appellant had made any enquiry before he made the allegation; fourthly whether there are reasons to accept the version that he acted with care and caution and finally whether there is preponderance of probability that the appellant acted in good faith. The aforesaid circumstances of course need to be established during the course of trial by leading evidence but if the facts brought on record through the documents(Annexure-A/5 and Annexure-A/6) which can be taken to be unimpeachable in character, are not taken into account, there would be miscarriage of justice. 12. Annexure-A/5 and A/6 as referred to above are certainly the documents which came into existence after commission of the alleged offence but those documents do indicate about the fact situation existing on the day of alleged offence as it go to show that even the Directorate of Health Services and office of Chief Medical Officer/Designated officer Food safety Wing was not aware about the lifting of the ban over the product of the complainant and thereby by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the accused/respondent was knowing about the lifting of the ban. Thus, it is indicative of the fact that alleged defamatory statement was made without being aware of the fact relating to lifting of the ban and that nothing is there even to show that the alleged act was done with malice and thereby these circumstances go to establish that the accused/respondent acted in good faith. Thus, it is indicative of the fact that alleged defamatory statement was made without being aware of the fact relating to lifting of the ban and that nothing is there even to show that the alleged act was done with malice and thereby these circumstances go to establish that the accused/respondent acted in good faith. It be stated that the aforesaid circumstances of course need to be established during the course of trial by leading evidences but if the fact brought on record, through the documents-Annexure-A/5 and A/6, which have never been challenged can be taken to be unimpeachable in character suggesting no knowledge of lifting of the ban, are not taken into account, there would be miscarriage of justice which the learned Sessions Judge has taken into account for setting aside the impugned order to prevent the accused from miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality with the impugned order and hence it is dismissed.