P.C. Banerji, J.
1. This is an application for the revision of the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Moradabad, affirming the conviction of the applicant for an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the applicant, Musammat Jai Debi, presented an application to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in which she charged the complainant, Mr. Krishna Chandra Joshi, Deputy Collector, with instigating her opponent, Kaliyan Rai, to bring false charges against her. An inquiry was ordered and Mr. Nanavati, the Collector of Budaun, sent for the applicant and she appeared before him and repeated what she had said in her memorial, and added that Mr. Krishna Chandra Joshi had asked for a bribe from her which she had refused to pay. A further inquiry was held by Mr. Ingram, the successor of Mr. Nanavati, and before him also she apparently repeated what she had stated in her memorial to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. It was in regard to these statements that she was prosecuted, and she has been convicted on three separate charges, namely (1) of the statement made in the memroial to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, (2) the statement made before Mr. Nanavati, and (3) the statement made before Mr. Ingram.
2. It is urged that she could not be convicted on three different charges, because the statements made before Mr. Nanavati and Mr. Ingram cannot bedemeed to be a publication of the lible inasmuch ay she made the statements in answer to question put to her. I am unable to agree with this contention. There was no obligation on the applicant to make any statement to Mr. Nanavati imputing dishonesty and bribery to Mr. Krishna Chandra Joshi, and there was equally no obligation on her to make defamatory statements in regard to that officer before Mr. Ingram. The statements made by her were clearly publications of the original defamatory statement made in the memorial to the Lieutenant-Governor and there were thus three separate publications of the libel. The case does not fall within any of the exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. As the learned Sessions Judge has pointed out, exception (2) has no application as there was no expression of opinion. As to exception (8), there was nothing to show that she acted in good faith. The applicant was, therefore, rightly convicted on three different charges, and I see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Court below.
3. I accordingly dismiss the application.