JUDGMENT H B Prabhakara Sastry, J. - The petitioner herein who was tried in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., II Court, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), in C.C.No.21429/2001, for the offences punishable under Section 499 read with Sections 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC'), was convicted for the said offences and sentenced accordingly vide its judgment dated 28.10.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.387/2005, before the learned Prl.Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Session Judge's Court'), which also by its judgment dated 1.3.2010, while confirming the judgment of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal of the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred the present Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). 2. The summary of the case of the complainant, which is Mangalore Catholic Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'M.C.C.Bank'), is that the two Articles published by the accused as an Editor and Publisher in his Kannada language news paper by name "Karavali Ale" and English daily news paper by name "Canara Times", on 11.9.2000 and 12.9.2000 respectively, have defamed the reputation of the complainant's Bank. This made the complainant- Bank to institute a complaint against the accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. 3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, he was tried for the alleged offences where on behalf of the complainant, two witnesses were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 and documents at Exs.P-1 to P-7(a) were marked. From the accused side, the accused got himself examined as DW-1 and got examined two more witnesses as DW-2 and DW-3 and got produced and marked documents from Exs.D-1 to D-19. 4. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 28.10.2005, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 499, 500 and 501 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly, which judgment is confirmed by the learned Session Judge's Court. 5. Trial Court and Session Judge's Courts records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. 5. Trial Court and Session Judge's Courts records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court. 8. After hearing, the point that arise for my consideration is : " Whether the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court and the Session Judge's Court suffers with any illegality or perversity warranting any interference at the hands of this Court?" 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in her arguments submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused is the Editor and Publisher of two news papers and that he had published two articles as per Exs.P-1 and P-2, which articles the complainant has alleged that they are defaming the complainant. Learned counsel submitted that the contents of the articles are true and published in good faith for public good. As such, they fall under Ninth and Tenth Exception to Section 499 of IPC. In her support, she also relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harbhajan Singh -vs- State of Punjab and another, (1966) AIR SC 97 . Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the articles in question are the extract of a similar Article under Ex.D-1. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in his arguments submitted that there is concurrent finding of the trial Court, as well as the Session Judge's Court regarding the fact of the accused having committed the defamation. There is no perversity or illegality in the judgments. He also submitted that it is not proved that the articles in question are the extract of an article at Ex.D-1 and that the publisher owns the responsibility for the said article. He also submitted that the articles in question are not simply extraction, but, a detailed and separate articles by its author imputing all false allegations against the complainant and its business, as such, no interference is required in the matter. 11. He also submitted that the articles in question are not simply extraction, but, a detailed and separate articles by its author imputing all false allegations against the complainant and its business, as such, no interference is required in the matter. 11. A careful perusal of the materials placed before this Court, including the evidence recorded from both side and the impugned judgments and the arguments addressed from both side, would go to show that the petitioner herein is the Editor and Publisher of a Kannada evening daily news paper by name "Karavali Ale" and an English daily news paper by name "Canara Times", having good circulation in and around its place of publication. The complainant is a leading Co-operative Bank carrying on its business in the same place. The said Bank was qualified to be recognised as a Scheduled Bank by Reserve Bank of India. It has Branches all over the Dakshina Kannada and Udupi Districts in Karnataka. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner/accused in his said Kannada evening daily news paper "Karavali Ale", dated 11.9.2000, on the front page of the news paper, had published an Article under a large box with the title "Whither MCC Bank?" as per Ex.P-1. On the very next date, i.e., on 12.9.2000, the petitioner once again published a similar Article under the same title "Whither MCC Bank?" on the front page of his English daily news paper "Canara Times" in a box as per Ex.P-2. It is these two articles the complainant has called as defaming it by spoiling its reputation. 12. Section 499 of IPC reads as below: " 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 cases hereinafter expected, 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.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 a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. First Exception. - Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published. - 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. xxx xxx xxx 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 public 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 person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good. Section 500 of IPC is a punitive Section and Section 501 mentions that printing or engraving the matter known to be defaming is also an offence. 13. The article apart from stating that complainant-Bank i.e., M.C.C. Bank, was on the threshold of receiving Scheduled Bank status by the Reserve Bank of India having crossed 100 Crores deposit, is not free of controversies. It has mainly alleged two things against the said Bank. 13. The article apart from stating that complainant-Bank i.e., M.C.C. Bank, was on the threshold of receiving Scheduled Bank status by the Reserve Bank of India having crossed 100 Crores deposit, is not free of controversies. It has mainly alleged two things against the said Bank. The extract of those allegations are as below: (i) The RBI stipulated norm says that the cooperative bank should not lend more than one per cent of its funds to any single customer. The bank was caught napping having loaned Rs.2.2 crores to a publishing house, even when its deposit volume was around Rs.70 crore. Then came the RBI disapproval of the transaction. (ii) The breeze over the controversy was yet to subside when the bank displayed valour than discretion in indiscriminately cutting 18 full-grown trees in an ecologically sensitive spot, without obtaining permission from the appropriate authorities. And the bank did this, unmindful of its own 'preserve tree campaign', for which it had earlier spent a bit of its own fortune." The remaining portion of the articles are elaborative of these two allegations and certain comments against the persons said to have committed those acts. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner in her arguments submitted that the accused as a Publisher of news paper has got freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Thus, he has placed before the general public the true facts in good faith for the public good. In her support, she referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Harbhajan Singh's case (supra) . In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to discuss the scope of Section 499 of IPC, more particularly, with respect to Exception-9 to the said Act. With respect to concept of good faith under Section 499 of IPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe at Para-11 of its judgment that, whether or not good faith has been proved by an accused person who pleads in his defence the Ninth Exception under Section 499 of IPC to a charge of defamation under Section 500 of IPC, is a question of fact. Even if it is assumed to be a mixed question of law and fact, where the Courts below giving a concurrent finding on such a question, the Supreme Court does not generally examine the matter for itself while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. 15. With respect to burden of proof by the accused is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the same case was pleased to observe in Para-14 of its judgment as below : " There is consensus of judicial opinion in favour of the view that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. This, however, is the test prescribed while deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus of proving the guilt of the accused. It is not a test which can be applied to an accused person who seeks to prove substantially his claim that his case falls under an Exception. Where he is called upon to prove that his case falls under an Exception, law treats the onus as discharged if he succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability. As soon as the preponderance of probability is established the burden shifts to the prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus. Basically, the original onus never shifts and the prosecution has, at all stages of the case, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt." Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court proceeded to observe that, where an accused person pleads an Exception, he must justify his plea, but the degree and character of proof which he is accused to furnish in support of the plea, cannot be equated with the degree and character of proof expected from the prosecution which is required to prove its case. The onus on the accused may well be compared to the onus on a party in civil proceedings; just as in civil proceedings the Court which tries as an issue makes its decision by adopting the test of probabilities, so must a criminal Court hold the plea made by the accused proved, if a preponderance of probability is established by the evidence led by him. The Hon'ble Apex Court was further pleased to discuss the nature and scope of the onus of proof which the accused has to discharge in seeking the protection of Exception-9 to Section 499 of IPC as under: (i) If it is shown that the accused has led evidence to show that he acted in good faith and by the test of probabilities that evidence establishes his case, he will be entitled to claim the benefit of Except.9. (ii) The proof of truth of the impugned statement is not an ingredient of the Ninth Exception as it is of the first: under the Ninth Exception it is not necessary, and indeed it is immaterial, to consider whether the accused has strictly proved the truth of the allegations made by him. (iii) It is true that the mere plea that the accused believed that what he stated was true by itself, will not sustain his case of good faith under the Ninth Exception. Simple belief or actual belief by itself is not enough. It must be shown that the belief in the impugned statement had a rational basis and was not just a blind simple belief. That is where the element of the due care and attention plays an important role. If before making the statement the accused did not show due care and attention, that would defeat his plea of good faith. But it musts be remembered that good faith does not require logical infallibility. (iv) It is not possible to lay down any rigid rule or test for deciding whether an accused person acted in good faith under the Ninth Exception. The question has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case, what is the nature of the imputation made, under what circumstances did it come to be made, what is the status of the person who makes the imputation; was there any malice in his mind when he made the said imputation, was any enquiry made by him before he made it, are there reasons to accept his story that he acted with due care and attention and was satisfied that the imputation was true? These and other considerations would be relevant in deciding the plea of good faith under the Ninth Exception. These and other considerations would be relevant in deciding the plea of good faith under the Ninth Exception. (v) Absence of personal malice may be a relevant fact in dealing with the accused's plea of good faith, but its significance or importance cannot be exaggerated. The accused will have to show that he acted with due care and attention, even in the absence of personal malice." 16. The accused as DW-1 by himself and through DW-2 and DW-3 has taken a contention that the article was depicting truth and in good faith and for public good, he has made the said publication. His contention that the facts alleged in the articles are true, are required to be proved by him. The said burden on the part of the accused is not as serious as prosecution requiring to prove a criminal offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice for the accused, under Exception to Section 499 of IPC, if he proves preponderance of probabilities. As soon as preponderance of probabilities is established, the burden shifts to the other side, which, still has to discharge its original onus. However, it cannot be forgotten that the original onus never shifts and the prosecution has, at all stages of the case, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if the accused could plead an exception, satisfies the Court of the probability of what he has been called upon to establish and if on the evidence, it appears probable that the defence set up is true, he is entitled to a decision in his favour even though he may not have succeeded in proving the truth of his version beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, a Publisher of a defamatory statement can only be protected if he shows that he had taken all reasonable precautions and then had a reasonable and well-grounded belief in the truth of the statement. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sukra Mahto -vs- Basudeo Kumar Mahto and another, (1971) CriLJ 1168 , with respect to Exception-9 to Section 499 of IPC, was pleased to observe that, in order to claim good faith in prosecution for defamation, accused must show that before making alleged imputation, he had made enquiry with due care and attention and that he was satisfied about the truth of that imputation. In the same case, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in Para-7 as below : " The ingredients of the Ninth Exception are first that the imputation must be made in good faith; secondly, the imputation must be for protection of the interest of the person making it or of any other person or for the public good. Good faith is a question of fact. So is protection of the interest of the person making it. Public good is also a question of fact." The above guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court thus would clearly go to show that good faith requires care and caution and prudence in the background of context and circumstances. The position of the person making the imputation will regulate the standard of care and caution. Here the position of the accused is that he is admittedly an Editor and Publisher of two daily news papers, one in Kannada language and another in English language. In the matter of defamation, the position of news papers is not in any way different from that of a common man. The responsibility in either case is the same. The degree of care and attention required to be taken is also same in both the cases. In the case of publication of a defamatory matter, actual source of information on which the person accused has acted and the justifiability of his so acting may require to be considered. If he has not taken proper care and caution and the complainant is thereby defamed, he ought not to have escaped from consequences. In such a case, his attempt to undo the wrong which he has committed would not take away his culpability. What matters is whether he has acted with care and caution or has done so negligently. 18. In the instant case, the defence taken by the accused was that the articles published at Ex.P-1 and P-2 are the extracts of an article at Ex.D-1. Ex.D-1 is a magazine in Konkani language (regional language) under the name "Voice of Bendurcho Talo". What matters is whether he has acted with care and caution or has done so negligently. 18. In the instant case, the defence taken by the accused was that the articles published at Ex.P-1 and P-2 are the extracts of an article at Ex.D-1. Ex.D-1 is a magazine in Konkani language (regional language) under the name "Voice of Bendurcho Talo". Though English transaction of the said Konkani language magazine was not placed before this Court, however, from the submission of both side, it is given to the understanding of this Court that though certain allegations are said to have been made against the complainant-Bank in the said Article regarding granting of loan violating Reserve Bank of India guidelines, however, even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the admitted fact in the trial Court was that in the subsequent issue, there was an Article in the same magazine stating that the matter published in Ex.D-1 was not true as per Ex.P-7. Admittedly, the said magazine was meant for private circulation only, whereas, Exs.P-1 and P-2 are in general circular in public. It is also to be noticed that neither in the article at Ex.P-1 nor in the article at Ex.P-2, any mention is made as to the source of that article. Had really there is source to the Article either at Ex.D-1 or at Ex.P-7, the Author and Publisher ought to have necessary mentioned about the source, which also they have not done. Thus, it further go to show that it was an independent Article by the Author and the Publisher and to substantiate the contents therein, neither they had any facts or the documents before them nor they had any source to treat it as an extraction. 19. Even though according to the accused, Ex.D-1 was the basis for the publication, but, the fact remains that in Ex.D-2, dated 25.8.2000, the Chairman of the complainant-Bank has given a clarification. It appears that the accused has not considered the said clarification before publishing the article at Exs.P-1 and P-2. 19. Even though according to the accused, Ex.D-1 was the basis for the publication, but, the fact remains that in Ex.D-2, dated 25.8.2000, the Chairman of the complainant-Bank has given a clarification. It appears that the accused has not considered the said clarification before publishing the article at Exs.P-1 and P-2. Therefore, when for the alleged allegations said to have been made in the source article, which according to the accused is at Ex.D-1, the complainant-Bank has given clarification in the very same publication of the accused i.e., "Karavali Ale", dated 25.8.2000, which is at Ex.D-2, the accused was required to go through the said clarification, made certain enquiry and if only found to be true or if he has got any valid reasons to believe that in the public good he is required to publish the article, only then, he should have proceeded. However, there are no material on record to show that the accused either by himself or through DW-2 and DW-3 has made any such effort. On the other hand, the accused as DW- 1 in his cross-examination has admitted at Para-13 that if a common man reads Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, then, it goes to show that there is a suspicion regarding the transaction of the Bank. Further he has also admitted that once the suspicion is raised about the Bank transactions, then, their business would be diminished. 20. With respect to the contents of the article alleging illegal cutting of the trees is concerned, in the defence evidence, proceedings of the Forest Department has been produced before the trial Court as per Exs.D-6 to D-18. Those documents show that it was alleged against the complainant of committing an offence pertaining to cutting of the trees without obtaining sanction from the Forest Department. The proceedings were initiated against PW-1 in his capacity as a Manager of the M.C.C.Bank. Very same exhibits further go to show that the said matter was closed as compounded wherein the Bank Manager is said to have remitted an amount of 8,500/-. The said amount was said to have been a compromised amount as could be gathered from these exhibits. However, it is noteworthy that the articles at Exs.P-1 and P-2, no where mentions about the matter being compounded or closed on payment of compounding amount in the year 2001. The said amount was said to have been a compromised amount as could be gathered from these exhibits. However, it is noteworthy that the articles at Exs.P-1 and P-2, no where mentions about the matter being compounded or closed on payment of compounding amount in the year 2001. On the other hand, a reading of the said article go to show that the said offence was not only committed, but, also, have proved to be an offence. In that way, the said article was incomplete without mentioning the subsequent development that has taken place in connection with the alleged cutting of trees. It has only given half truth of the incident without mentioning the other half that the matter was compounded. 21. When a person who is accused of the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC takes shelter under Exception-1 to the said Section, it is for him to establish that what he has published was the truth. In the case on hand, though every material was available to him, since compounding of an alleged offence was not a confidential or in-camera proceeding, the Publisher ought to have mentioned in the article that the alleged offence was subsequently compounded between the parties. Non-disclosure of the said portion of the truth cannot be considered as an omission by good faith. The facts and circumstances of the case and a reading of the articles in its entirety go to show that the Author and Publisher was intended to attack the reputation of the complainant-Bank and its management and to bring down its reputation. 22. Thus, analysing the evidence placed before them in its appropriate manner, both the trial Court, as well the Session Judge's Court have come to a conclusion that the offence alleged against the accused have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I do not find any incorrectness or illegality or impropriety in the said finding of both those Courts. With respect to the quantum of sentence also, the sentence ordered is proportionate to the gravity of the offences proved. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 23. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 23. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with trial Court and Session Judge's Court records to the concerned Courts without delay.