Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
12. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code reads, thus: "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 -i imputation will harm, the repu_tation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that ·person." Eight and Ninth Exceptions, to which relian~e has been placed by the learned counsel, read as under: "Eight Exception.–Accusation preferred in good faith to aut~orised persor:i .H It is n.ot defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation M.A. RUMUGAM v. KITTU@KIRSHNAMOORTHY [S.S. SINHA, J.] against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. Ninth Exception.–lmputation 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." c The word "good faith" has been defined in Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code to mean: "52 – "Good faith" Nothing is said to be done or believed in "good faith" which it is done or believed without due care and attention."
13. The complaint petition filed by the respondent herein contained a statement that he was implicated allegedly on the basis of an information received by the appellant from one Namasivayam son of Rajagopal and Kaliappan son of Ramu of Naluvedapathi Village that they had damaged nine coconut trees by pouring acid mixed kerosene on the respondent's advice. ~ .. The aforementioned allegation against the respondent was published in various newspapers, viz., Maalai Murusu, Maalai Malar, Dhina Boomi, Dhina Karan, Dhina Malar as well as in some weeklies. On the aforementioned backdrop, he alleged to have been defamed as thereby, "false propaganda among the village people and implication his name in the complaint against the enemies Kakliappan and Namasivayam besides publishing the same in the dailies and weeklies" was made against him. It was furthermore stated: "Since there was no basic evidence in the complaint, it )….. was given with the sole intention of defaming the petitioner herein and the complainant did not cooperate for the investigation the case registered in Thalaignayiru police station in Crime No. 360/2003 could not be proceeded further and the charge sheet could not be filed. Therefore, the case on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Tiruthuraipoondi was closed on 7.4.2005. Because of the illegal activities of the respondent, the petitioner/ complainant herein is unable to make his foreign trips and c suffered heavy financial loss and lost his status among his relatives and the people of the Village and suffered enormous mental agony."
14. Allegations made in the said complaint petition, thus, f in our opinion, make out a case for proceeding against the appellant under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code as thereby imputation concerning the respondent had been made intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation would harm his reputation.
15. For the purpose of bringing his case within the purview of the Eight and the Ninth Exception appended to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, it would be necessary for the appellant to prove good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it or of any other person or for the public· F good. –<' •
16. It is now a well-settled principle of law that those who plead exception must prove it. The burden of proof that his action was bonafide would, thus, be on the appellant alone.
17. At this stage, in our opinion, it would have been premature for the High Court to consider the materials placed by the appellant before it so as to arrive at a definite conclusion that there was no element of bad faith on the part of the appellant in making the said complaint before the police H authorities. M.A. RUMUGAM v. KITIU @KIRSHNAMOORTHY [S.B. SINHA, J.]
18. Respondent was furthermore discharged by the learned Magistrate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the police authorities could not complete the investigation within a period of six months.
19. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. _ Sivabalamurugan on a decision of this Court in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande Etc. v. Uttam and Another [1999 (1) SCR 580). Accusation against the accused therein related to the conduct on his part before the Treasury Officer. The learned – Magistrate, when the complaint was filed, instead of issuing process called upon the Treasury Officer to hold an inquiry and submit a report in the court. Pursuant thereto and I or in furtherance thereof, a report was submitted. In the said report, the Treasury Officer clearly indicated that pursuant to the report made by the accused persons against the complainant, a departmental enquiry had been made and the complainant was found guilty. It was in the aforementioned situation, the Magistrate's order refusing to issue summons was upheld by this Court.
20. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Furthermore, the question, as to whether a totally false complaint has been made as against the respondent or not as he was not even in India prior to the date of occurrence, is required to be gone into by the learned Trial Judge.
21. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. K.K.T. Ap"eal dismissed.