Ninth Exception to defamation requires proof of good faith and public good; it cannot usually be decided before trial.

A plea that a defamation complaint is protected by the Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC cannot ordinarily be accepted at the stage of recording plea when good faith and public good remain disputed questions of fact. Because good faith under Section 52 IPC requires due care and attention, and the public-good element must be established on evidence, a court should not pre-judge the defence on a preliminary record. Where the publication is defamatory on its face and the factual foundation for the exception has not been proved, the matter must proceed to trial before the Magistrate rather than be quashed at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution for defamation could be quashed at the stage of recording plea on the basis that the publication was protected by the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) Whether the impugned publication, on the materials then available, could be treated as conclusively falling within the Ninth Exception because it was made in good faith and for the public good.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution for defamation could be quashed at the stage of recording plea on the basis that the publication was protected by the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The accused had not yet been called upon to plead and the case was still at the stage of recording plea under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The question whether the accused could establish the Ninth Exception depended on evidence, including whether due care and attention had been exercised and whether the publication was for public good. Quashing the proceedings at that preliminary stage would amount to pre-judging disputed issues of fact.

Conclusion: The prosecution could not be quashed at that stage; the Magistrate was required to record the plea and proceed according to law.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned publication, on the materials then available, could be treated as conclusively falling within the Ninth Exception because it was made in good faith and for the public good.

Analysis: Good faith under Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code requires due care and attention, and the question whether an imputation was made for public good is itself one of fact. The publication was defamatory on its face, and the accused had not yet discharged the burden of showing the factual foundation necessary for the exception. The materials relied on by the High Court were insufficient to finally determine that defence without trial.

Conclusion: The publication could not be conclusively held to be protected by the Ninth Exception on the existing record.

Final Conclusion: The order quashing the proceedings was set aside and the matter was directed to continue before the Magistrate in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea based on the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, where good faith and public good are questions of fact, cannot ordinarily be finally accepted at a preliminary stage without evidence and trial.

Dissenting Opinion: Baharul Islam, J. would have upheld the quashing of the complaint on the view that the inquiry report and surrounding circumstances established good faith and public good, making further trial an abuse of process.

---