under the law of defamation a person who is alleged to be defamed must be fixed with some certainty.
Apart from this it cannot be lost sight of that there is no express mention of Shri Gurnani in the controversial passage. Even if the contentions of the appellant are accepted, it would require more or less elaborate process of reasoning to come to the conclusion that it referred to Shri Gurnani. At best the passage couldapply to both the candidates Dr. Pohumal and Shri Gurnani. When the person against whom a false statement is said to have been made cannot be fixed up with certainty, it cannot be said that there was any publication in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate. Even under the law of defamation a person who is alleged to be defamed must be fixed with some certainty. We may refer to the following passage in Fraser on Libel And Slander,7th Edition page 9:
"But where it is uncertain whether the plaintiff was the particular individualaimed at, no action lies, e.g., where after the trial of an action at which there were three witnesses, the defendant said, 'One of you three is perjured', it was held that no action lay, as there was nothing to show that the plaintiff was the particular witness referred to." (Sir John Bourn's case, cited Cro. Eliz. 497). We may also refer to the case of Government Advocate, B and O v. Gopabandhu Das, ILR 1 Pat 414: (AIR 1922 Pat 101) in which it was observed by Dawson Miller, C. J., that:
"The rule is that if the words used contain no reflection upon a particular,individual or individuals but may equally well apply to others although belonging to the same class an action will not lie. 'So if the words reflect impartially upon either A or B or upon some one ot a certain number or class and there is nothing to shew which one was meant no one can sue. Where the words reflect on each and every member of a certain class each or all can sue' (Odgers on Libel and Slander, 5th Edition 147)".
We are therefore of opinion that the passage referred to does not come within the definition of corrupt practice under Section 123(4).
