(1.) THE case has been argued at great length but I am still unable to see that there is anything in it that would make revision of the order for further trial even possible. The learned Sessions Judge has held that if the signature on the original of the notice published in the newspaper is that of the accused, all the ingredients of the offence of defamation are established and that, as far as the case has managed to go in two years, that signature is proved to be his. That seems to me an undoubtedly correct view of the matter, and on that view no order is possible but that further enquiry shall be made and the accused shall be asked to deny the signature appearing to be his and required to prove that it is not his if he denies it.
(2.) IT is perhaps advisable to mention the three contentions raised on behalf of the accused in this Court. The first was that there was nothing defamatory in the notice. The imputation conveyed by it is that the complainant had been dishonest in the management of the affairs of the Company and was trying to conceal that dishonesty by methods that were themselves dishonest. Anything more completely falling within the definition of defamation in the Indian Penal Code would be hard to imagine.
(3.) THE third contention was that there is no evidence of publication. As the learned Sessions Judge has pointed out, if the signature is that of the accused, publication is proved beyond the possibility of doubt by that with the other proved and admitted circumstances of the case.