Good faith in criminal defamation requires reasonable investigation; unverified rumours and reports do not attract the ninth exception.

Protection under the ninth exception to Section 499 IPC requires not only an honest belief but also due care and attention, including a reasonable investigation and an objective basis for the imputations. Allegations that a complainant was a leader of smugglers and responsible for crimes were treated as defamatory per se, and reliance on newspaper reports, Assembly speeches, or unverified rumours did not establish good faith or public good. The conviction under Section 500 IPC was upheld. A separate plea of prejudice based on denial of fair opportunity and claimed privilege over an unpublished official record also failed, though the sentence was reduced from one year's simple imprisonment to three months with fine.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused was protected by the ninth exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the ground that the defamatory imputations were made in good faith and for the public good. (ii) Whether the accused was prejudiced by denial of fair opportunity, including in relation to claimed privilege over official records, so as to affect the conviction.

Issue (i): Whether the accused was protected by the ninth exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the ground that the defamatory imputations were made in good faith and for the public good.

Analysis: The imputations that the complainant was a leader of smugglers and responsible for a large number of crimes were held to be defamatory per se. Good faith, in the context of criminal defamation, required not merely an honest belief but also due care and attention, meaning reasonable investigation and an objective basis for the belief. The accused relied on newspaper reports, Assembly speeches, and circumstantial material, but these did not specifically implicate the complainant and did not amount to proof of enquiry or verification. Repetition of rumours or privileged legislative statements outside the House did not establish truth or good faith. The accused also failed to justify each imputation with acceptable material.

Conclusion: The ninth exception was not available to the accused and the conviction under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused was prejudiced by denial of fair opportunity, including in relation to claimed privilege over official records, so as to affect the conviction.

Analysis: The complaint that the trial court denied a fair opportunity was rejected. The court also held that the claim of privilege over an unpublished official record under the Indian Evidence Act did not entitle the accused to acquittal. The accused had not shown that the exclusion of the document undermined the defence in a manner recognised by law.

Conclusion: The plea of prejudice failed and did not disturb the finding of guilt.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the sentence was substantially reduced from one year's simple imprisonment to three months' simple imprisonment with a fine, reflecting partial relief to the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: In criminal defamation, protection under the ninth exception to Section 499 requires both honest belief and reasonable investigation amounting to due care and attention; unverified rumours, newspaper reports, or repeated allegations do not establish good faith.

---