The Press LAw negatives action for defamation, "inter alia", in respect of publications made by a public officer in the exercise of his functions, and also where the publication consists of a "bona fide' report of debates of the Legislative Assembly provided teh relevant part of the debate is published, and the defence of any person against whom any charge is made is not suppressed, or amliciouslyor negligently cartailed or altered. If a Minister, who itnends to make a speech in the Legislative Assembly, causes that speech to be recorded, and later on, after the sepech has been made, to be broadcast to the public in geernal, he is not in the position of a person who publishes a report of parliamentary proceedings, but he is simply and solely repeating his speech no longer under cover ofthe absolute privilege which attaches to a speech made in the Legislative Assembly, but outside thatbody, and, by means of the recorded broadcadt, to the public at large. And in such case no privilege applies under the second of the two above mentioned grounds of negation of action. A broadcast isa publication of printed matter in terms of the Prress Law, the recording thereof being tatamount to a gramophone record; and it si protected by privilege if it si made by a public officer in the exercise if his functions. But if that officer exceeds the limits of his functions, then the privilegedoes not attach; so that , if the public officer uses the occasion maliciously for some wrong motive, or for some otehr motive other than a sense of duty, then proof of such indirect and wrong motive, or for some otehr motive otehr than a sense of duty, then proof of such indirect and wrong motivewill defeat the privilege. Of course, the burden of proving malice is cast on the plaintiff; but the Court is not entitled to shut out the complainant from his right to lay before the tribunal suchevidence as he alleges to have at his disposal to prove that the defendant public officer was not using the occasion of teh occasion fo teh broadcast honestly. in the case of the manager of teh broadcasting compny, the case is different; becasue such a broadcast unquestionably falls to be considered as a a report of parliament debates. And if it is a "verbatim" report of a speech made in parliament, tehre can be no question that the report was a "bona fide" one, that is fair and accurate; in as much as, being a "verbatim" reprot, it could in no way be garbled or distorted; nor could there have been any suppression, or nay malicious or negligenet curtailment or altering of the defence of tecomplainant. In cases falling under the Press Law, the complainant, differently from the general law, may enter an appeal in all cases.