1. The applicant if this case has been convicted of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that he published a pamphlet in Hindi defaming the complainant. Both in the heading and in the body of this pamphlet he describes the complainant as a sharif badmash, which has been aptly translated by the Court below as a 'gentleman scoundrel'. He says in the pamphlet that he has issued a previous pamphlet giving a summary of the complainant's evil doings and challenging a prosecution for defamation, and he describes him as one of a gang of badmashes who in the Sambat year 1966 established an unlawful Court in the market to the injury of the Government Courts and, as he further says in a portion of the pamphlet not re-produced in the charge, thereby inflicted great injustice on the public. There can be no doubt that the pamphlet was grossly defamatory in character and in view of the fact that the Chamber of Commerce which is described by the accused as a Court ceased to exist ten years before the case, it is impossible for the accused to assert that he acted in good faith for the public good.
2. The revision is pressed mainly on the basis of a sentence in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court in which the learned Judge says that nothing said by a man in the accused's position could seriously injure the reputation of the complainant and that the complainant did not lose his reputation by reason of the injury. The applicant relies on Explanation 4 to Section 499. In this Explanation it is said that no imputation is said to harm a person's reputation unless it lowers his moral or intellectual character etc. etc. This argument overlooks the fact that a person commits defamation within the meaning of Section 499 who publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm the reputation of that person whether harm is actually caused or not. A person who publishes defamatory matter against another in a case not covered by any of the exceptions cannot escape punishment on the ground that the reputation of the person attacked was so good or that of the person attacking' so bad, that serious injury to the reputation was not in fact caused.
3. The accused has been rightly convicted and I reject the application.