1. Bachcha Paragwal and Wadan Paragwal have been convicted under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, and fined Rs. 150 each. The complainant was one Sundar Lal. It appears that Sundar Lal had sent out an intimation that there would he a festival in which banner would be consecrated and Brahmins would be fed. On previous occasions Bachcha had been present and had received certain offerings from Sundar Lal. On the present occasion, as both the lower Courts find, the applicant Bachcha asked if ho was to act as theretofore and receive the offerings. Sundar Lal informed him that he had been advised to obtain the services of a more senior man and that Lachman Paragwal was to act. Therefor the applicants referred to Sunder Lal as a 'Kori Chamar'. The result was that no Paragwal, not even Lachman, attended. There can be no doubt that the Courts below were of opinion that the remarks which were made were made in consequence of the anger and annoyance caused by the employment of Lachman instead of Bachcha. In other words, the words would never have been uttered had Sunder Lal remained satisfied with the offices of Bachcha. The Courts below were clearly of opinion that the applicants intended to make little of and degrade Sundar Lal in his reputation. It is said that there is no such caste as Parsutia Kaisth and that in reality Sundar Lal is only what the applicants said he was, namely, a Kori Chamar. Sundar Lal in his evidence says that there are about 250 families who are known as Parsutia Kaisths. However this may be, I think I am bound to assume that the real intention of the applicants was to make little of Sundar Lal. This clearly amounts to an offence under Section 499, Indian Penal Code, unless the facts bring it under some one or other of the exceptions to that section. It is said that it comes under exceptions 9 and 10. Both of these exceptions require that the imputation should be made in good faith and either for the protection or good of the person making it or of some other person. Good faith is negatived by the findings of the Court below. Under these circumstances, I do not think that there is any justification for interfering with the decision of the Court below. Accordingly I dismiss the application.