users. Thus, the petitioner herein cannot take a defence that the complainant had chosen only to prosecute him for retweeting the alleged defamatory imputation, even though several other thousands of social media users had retweeted the same original tweet containing hyperlink/URL of defamatory video. 80. Therefore, though every ‘retweet’ of defamatory imputation would ordinarily amount to ‘publication’ under Section 499 of IPC, it is ultimately for the person so aggrieved to decide as to which retweet caused more harm to his reputation, and inter alia lowered his moral or intellectual character or his credibility among the members of society. This also will be decided by the learned Trial Court on the basis of material before it as to whether the retweet with its accompanying circumstances had the potential to defame the complainant concerned. VIII. WHETHER PETITIONER IS LIABLE TO BE SUMMONED FOR HIS ACT OF RETWEETING THE ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY CONTENT? 81. In the present case, the petitioner had retweeted the original tweet of Sh. Dhruv Rathee, and the said retweet contained the embedded hyperlink/URL to the allegedly defamatory video which had been uploaded on the YouTube channel owned and run by Sh. Dhruv Rathee. 82. While the petitioner may plead absence of any malicious intent in the act of retweeting, the Court has to consider the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 45 of 50