A.H. Khan, J.
1. On a complaint being filed by the Public Prosecution under Section 198-B of the Criminal Procedure Code for two defamatory articles which appeared in the 'Dainik Sanik' of Agra, the applicant took the plea that in so far as the alleged defamation was of a class, namely the Madhya Bhara-t Police Force, no complaint can lie under Section 198-B. The Court rejected the plea and it is against this order that the revision is filed.
2. It seems that the applicant published two articles under the headings
^^D;k ekuflax dk xksyh ekjus ds igys tgj fn;kx;k** vkSj ^^ekuflax jgL;ij e/;Hkkjr iqyhl ijnk Mky jgh gS**
The complaint was that these two articles defamed Mr. Putto Singh, the D. I. G., Madhya Bharat, who was in charge of the Police operations in the disturbed area to wipe out the dacoits. The applicant contended that the articles did not bear the name of Mr. Putto Singh and that they were general in their nature. It is true that the trend of law is that when a libellous attack is on a class of persons, it is deemed to be too wide to hurt any one in particular.
But all the same, though the attack may be general yet it may convey an innuendo at some particular person, (in the instant case the innuendo is said to be at Mr. Putto Singh, the D. I. G. Police) and then of course a person so aggrieved can prosecute. So far the prosecution has had no opportunity to lead evidence to show that though the articles revealed no names, yet they referred to Mr. puttoo Singh. The prosecu-cution should be given an opportunity to prove its case and I do not think that there is any substance in the objection which is sought to be raised at this stage.
3. Mr. Anand Bihari Mishra has also contended that the Additional Sessions Judge, is nob competent to hear the complaint. This contention he did not raise before the trial Court. But he concedes that the Court of the Additional Sessions judge is a Court of Session. Section 198-B under which the complaint is filed directs that a Court of Session may take cognisance of such a complaint. It does not say that the complaint should be laid before the District and Sessions Judge. The contention, I am afraid, has ne force.
4. For reasons stated above, the revision is dismissed.