Ashutosh Dubey vs Netflix, Inc & Ors. on 5 May, 2020 which a person who is the object of such unfavourable sentiments is exposed. The words or visible representations, therefore, complained of must contain an imputation concerning some particular person or persons whose identity can be established. If they contain no reflection upon a particular individual or individuals, but equally apply to others although belonging to the same class, an action for defamation will not lie. It goes without saying that the word 'person' in Section 499 of the Code includes a company or an association or a collection of persons as well, as provided in explanation 2 of Section 499, but the class of person attributed to must be a small determinate body. It is interesting in this connection to consider the case in (1) Government Advocate v. Gopa Babu Das (A.I.R. 1922 Patna, 101) where a newspaper had published certain libellous matters against two constables of Begunia Police Station in the Puri district. No constable in particular was named in that publication and the entire publication was absolutely false. In an action for defamation by two constables of the said police station against the printer and publisher of the newspaper Dawson Miller, C.J. observed as follows:-"However reprehensible and morally unjustifiable the words complained of may be they must to be, actionable, contain an imputation concerning some particular person or persons whose identity can be established. An Imputation against an association or collection of persons jointly may also amount to defamation within the meaning of the section but at the same time it must be an Imputation capable of being brought home to a particular individual or collection of individuals as such. The article in question is not directed against the constables of the Begunia thana collectively so that they, as a body, could assert that each and all of them had been libelled. Nor can it be said that two ascertained individuals have been the object of the attack. It is unnecessary that the person whose conduct is called in question should be described by name. It is sufficient if on the evidence it can be shown that the imputation was directed towards a particular person or persons who can be identified...." ***** ***** ***** 15. The case of (2) Eastwood v. Holmes 1 F. & F. 347 (The English Reports, Volume CLXXV, Nisi Prius VI) completely supports my proposition that lawyers as a class are not capable of being defamed. In an action for defamation by innuendo where in the report of the proceedings of the British Archaeological Association it was mentioned in regard to certain antiquities that-"these are figures reported to have been obtained from the Thames, and called 'pilgrims' signs.' They are being offered not only in London, but throughout the country, and antiquaries should be on their guard in the purchase of them. Mr. C. had inspected 800 of them, but the aggregate is stated to be not less than 2000. The whole are proved to be of recent fabrication. They appear to have been made in chalk moulds. They have been steeped in a strong acid and smeared over with Thames Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/170570619/ 4