Sec.

3811 CLERK OR SERVANT 3027

store, regardless of any duties he may have with respect to accounts, and such a mcan1ng has
in England and India of thc
bccn judicially recogniscd, but this is not the gencral understanding
word, and it is not used in that scnsc in Indian Penal Code and English Statutes
for the defaults of his servant in
There is no difticulty in making a Mastcr responsible
arises. Where however the
cascs of absolute liability
because then no question of mens rea
to treat the Master as having mens rca
offence is one involving mens rea, it is unsatisfactory state of mind
it was his servant who had the necessary
when in fact he had no such thing and
control and supervision of the master and is
bound to
A servant acts under the direct
to him in the course of his work...An agent though
conform to all reasonable orders given be
in accordance with all lawful instructions which may given
to
bound to exercise his authority control or supervision
not subject in its exercise to the direct
him time to time by his principal is the Secretary
the nature of duties of the appellant as
of the principal." Having regard to
of an agent and not servant."
of the Society, his status was that
form ofthe offence oftheft. The aggravation
(1) This section also deals with an agravated master and clerk
which exists in the relationship of
consists in the abuse of trust and confidence that for ordinary
is accordingly more severe than
and master and servant and the punishment
theft.5 section is
within the meaning of this
whether a person is a clerk or a servant
(2) The test
to obey the orders of
his employer, he
whether the person is under the control of and bound service."
bound to devote the whole of his time to his employer's
without being
may be so trustees in whom the
funds of the
is bound to account to the
(3) The treasurer of society
a
but that does not make
the treasurer a servant of
the
vest when required to do so,
society
trustee.
tickets for anexcursion organised
of a friendly society selling the
A committee member servant or clerk of
(4) collected and not a
the society is the joint owner of the money
by
society.8
clerk is a servant. to give him
(5) Parcel delivery B applied to R and R agreed
from place W to place when the
(6) The prisoner, carrier to let
a
parcels and go on messages
and agrecd him carry out him
B
what he thought fit. gave
him
some employment to give
other employment
for which B was
received moncy and
prisoner had no Messrs S & C - Prisoner
he was to receive £2 from 39 Geo lll c. 85 and was
which the statute
an order upon servant within
embezzled i t - Held, the
prisoner was a
officer's custody for
office out of the
rightly convicted.10
clerk of the
official by a
papers
(7) The taking of theft by a clerk or
servant.1
party's vakil is
showing them to
a
Cri. LJ 322.
AIR 1956 S.C.
149; 1956
Uttar Pradesh,
Singh vs.
State of LRI CCR 41
Chandi Prasad 250 (254): (1866)
4.
**
(1866) 10 Cox Cri. C.
5. 1887 All WN 54(54). LR 2 CCR 34 (245).
Cri. C. 492(494): (1873) 11 Cox Cri. C. 241
Cox
(1873) 12 (1869)
**
6. 24 & 25 Vict C. 96
CCR 177:
7. (1869) LR 1
Cox Cri. C. 398 (400).
8. (1863) 9
(1856) 26 LJ MC 4(6).
9.
ER 813(813). 689 (DB).
10. (1815) 168 27 Cri. LJ
Bom 122 (124, 128):
11. AlR 1926
 L A W O F C R I M E S& C R I M I N O L O G Y

SCc. 381
stolcn from the posscssion
was
3028 that propcrty
evidence
a b s e n c e of stand.2

(8) In the
cannot

underthis
section
cmploycr
nccd not beactual physical SSCSsion.
the
conviction
of the
mastcr or
by aa sorvant
scrvant on
on bchalf of the master ig
The possession
posscssion
the
(9) posscssion
such as 3
scction.
Even
constnuctive
n d c r this

sufticicnt to
constitute
possession
his master reposcs confidencc and
confidence and
trust, betrays
such as gold aand
whom
is
(10) Where a
domestic
servant

abscnce, of
prcCious
articlcs such gold diamond
theti, in his is proved,14
and commits
the confidcnce
dealt with very
scvcrcly, if the guilt
ornaments. he must be PC. ( 9 4 ) | h a no application tan
.
Section 360 Cr.
D Soction 562 Cr. PC. [now
offence under this section.
and superviSion
or the master and is hOInd
under the direct control to
servant acts
A
the course or his work. An agent though bound
to him in
conform to all reasonable orders given instructions which may be given to L
to exercise his authority
in accordance with all lawfuül m
in its exercise to the direct control or sunericin.
from time to time by his principal is not subject
of the principal. Having regard to the nature of duties of the appellant as the Secretary of the
Society, his atus was that of an agent and not servant. Moreover, whether the appellant
should be charged under Sec. 408 or Sec. 409, IPC was of no importance in the present case
as the sentence imposed on him under Sec. 409, IPC. viz., four years rigorous imprisonment.
could be maintained even under Sec. 408, IPC.16
The story of the accused that the money was given to the servant
alongwith ornaments
and was recovered from the almirah seems to be too
good to be true. It is too much to think that
the accused had entrusted the keys of the almirah to the
servant.7
The securing of
employment by giving out false name and wrong address shows that he
had some obligue motive in his mind 18
5. Master
In the
absence of evidence as to
Sec. 381, cannot stand.19 ownership of stolen property,
Sec. 381 deals with theft in a conviction under
the master of the employer 20 respect of the property in
possessiO O
6. Clerk as witness
It is
wrong to say
that the
person
wItness. The
status in life. It respectability and the veracityholding
of
clerical post cannot be called
indepenacl
cannot also be said a witness is not necessarily
superior officers 21 that the clerks are less truthful
and more
depending On u e

amenable nan heir

12. AIR 1916
Mad
13.
Weir 437 1103(1 X1103):
16 Cri. LJ
14. 1959 (438):
Jab LJ 738 (1854) 169 ER 717
640 (DB).
15.
(1913) 14 Cri. LJ (738) 1951 All LJ
** (722): Dears 257 **
(1782) 168 ER 228
16. Chandi 113
17. State Prasad Singh vs.
(114) (Lah) ** 630(631). (228): 1 Leacn 1.
of A.P. State of U.P., (1908) 7 Cri. LJ
8.
19. Earabhadrappa
16 Cr.
vs. B.
Eswariah, AIR AIR 1956 SC
vs. 1983 SC 353: 149: 1956 Cr. LJ319(320)Nag).
20. LJ 640: 30 State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC Cr. LJ 688. 322.
1983
21. 1974(I) Cr. LT Ind. Cas. 464.
446: 1983 Cr.
Hazari Lal vs. State
126
(Púnj) LJ 846.
(1Dclhi
Administrationon), AIR 1980 SC
873: 1980 Cr.
LJ 564.
 from humoie
Ogn aa to
beBhgIng
It would be the travesty of truth if persons coming
are to be disbclievcd or rejectcd as unworthy of
officewise, wealthwise lower strata of socicty conversc unfortunately
humble position in socicty. The
belief solely on the ground of thcir clcrks by obscrving thatt
to reject the testimony of
to be truc. It was hcld that it is wrong
appears witnesscs.22
are petty clerks
and cannot be stylcd as indepcndent
they
was a scrvant of
thc deccascd, was no ground to dub him an
The mere fact that he 23

witness or to brush aside his

otherwisc rcliablc testimony
"interested" or "partisan"
7.Theft
of any property in the posscsSIon of
his master or cmployer
The words "thcft in respect in the possession of the
the time of theft, the property stolen must have becn
show that at
stole a sum of money shut up in a
master or employcr
of the accused. Where wome policemen
as scntinals,
over which they were mounting guard
box and placed in the Police Treasury building,
offence under this section and not under
Sec. 409.24
were held guilty of an
they
8. Sentence in
for a person who being a clerk or servant of the property
Sec. 381 provides punishment
theft in respect of any such property.
possession of the master, committing court can adjust
is obligatory under Sec. 381, however, the
Sentence of the imprisonment
period of imprisonment.25
to fine"
9. Shall also be liable which may or may
future possibility probability happening
or
of the
The word 'liable' m e a n s a has the power to impose
the sentence

other words the Magistrate

not actually o c c u r . In
fine under Sec. 381, but it is discretionary.

10. Procedure with permission

Non-bailable, Compoundable
Sec. 381 is Cognizable,
The offence under
of the Court.
accusea)
11. Charge hereby charge you (name of the
of the Magistrate, etc.)
I, (name and office
servant employed in the
as follows clerk of A (or
you being a
namely_
That on or about at stealing certain property,
committed theft by under Sec. 381
clerk or servant of A) offence punishable
capacity of a committed an

the said A, and thereby

in thepossession of

IPC and within my

cognizance. Court on the said charge.
direct that you
be tried by the said
And I hercby
1982 Cr. LJ
1.
SC 1511:
AIR 1982 Cr. LR (SC) 114.
Rajasthan,
Mangal v s .
State of 1980 SCC (Cr)
211: 1980
Kishan Chand Orissa, WR (Cr) 29
22 Narendra vs. State of Boidnath Singh, (1865)3
23 Radhey Shyam WR (Cr) 55;
(1865) 2
Juggurnath Singh.
24
25 Cr.LJ 697.
25.
1345 Cr. LJ 389.
26. 1975 Cr. LJ 1957 Punj. 426: 1957
55: ILR
AlR 1957 Punj.
27.
 CLERK AS WITNE:SS 3029
Scc.381
It would be the travesty of truth if persons coming from humble origin and bclemgjing to
ofticewisc, wcalthwise lowcr strata of socicty are to bc disbclicved or rcjcctcd as unworthy of
belicf solcly on the ground of thcir humble position in socicty. Thc convcrsc unfortunatcly

appcars to be truc. It was hcld that it is wrong to rejcct the testimony of clocrks by obscrving that
they are petty clerks and cannot be stylcd as indepcndent witnesses.22
servant of the deccascd, was no ground to dub him an
The mere fact that he was a

"partisan" witness or to brush aside his otherwise reliable testimony23

interested or

7.Theft
The words "theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer
have been in the possession of the
show that at the time of theft, the property stolen must
stole a sum of money shut up in a
master or employer of the accused. Where wome policemen
box and placed in the Police Treasury building, over which they were mounting guard as sentinals

they were held guilty of an offence under this section and not under Sec. 409.24

8. Sentence
ofthe clerk or servant property in
provides punishment for a person who being a
Sec. 381
in of
possession of the master, committing theft respect any
such property.
Sentence of the imprisonment is obligatory
under Sec. 381, however, the court can adjust

period of imprisonment.25

9. Shall also be liable to fine"

which may or may
The word 'liable' means a future possibility or probability happening of the
the sentence
In other words the Magistrate has the power to impose
not actually occur.

fine under Sec. 381, but it is

discretionary27

10. Procedure
with permission
381 is Cognizable, Non-bailable, Compoundable
The offence under Sec.

of the Court
11. Charge (name of the accused)
of the Magistrate, etc.) hereby charge you
I, (name and office
asfollows (or servant employed in the
clerk of A
you being
a
That on or about_ at certain property, namcly
committed theft by stealing Sec. 381,
servant of A)
capacity of a clerk or
committed an offence
punishable under
said A, and thereby
in the possession of the

IPC and within my cognizance. Court on the said charge.

that you be tried by the said
And I hercby direct

1982 Cr. LJ 1.
1982 SC 1511:
State of Rajasthan, AIR 1980 Cr. LR (SC)
114.
Kishan Chand Mangal vs.
1980 SCC (Cr) 211:
22.
Narendra vs. State of Orissa, 3 WR (Cr) 29.
23 Radhey Shyam 55; Boidnath Singh, (1865)
(1865) 2 WR (Cr)
24 Juggurnath Singh,
697.
25. 25 Cr. LJ
1345. LJ 389.
26. 1975 Cr. LJ 426: 1957 Cr.
55: ILR 1957 Punj.
27. AlR 1957 Punj.
 Section 382

hurt or restraint in
Theft after preparation made for causing death,
commits thefi, having made
order to the committing of the theft.-Whoever
or fear of death, or of
preparaiion for causing death, or hurt, or restraint,
hurt, or of resiraint, to any person, in order to the commiting of such theft,
or
I77 Ordcr io the effecting of his escape afler the committing of such thefi, or in
ordcr 1o the retaining of property taken by such thefi, shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to len years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
Tllustrations-(a) A commits theft on property in Zs possession; and, while committing
this thefi. he has a loaded pistol under his garment, having provided this pistol for the
prurpose of hurting Z in case Z should resist. A has committed the fofence defined in this
Section.

(o) A picks Zs pocket, having posted several of his companions near him, in order
that they may retrain Z, if Z should perceive what is passing and should resist, or should
attempt to apprehend A. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

SYNOPSIS
1. Scope 5. Preparation
2. Ingredients 6. Procedure
3. Proof of theft 7. Charge
4. Intention to steel
1. Scope
For this offence one prepares himself and is ready to cause death, hurt or cause
wrongful
restraint if resisted so his ready to cause injury. In case of robbery one
actually causes injury.
This section relates to an aggravated form of Sec. 379 which
provides the punishment for theft.
The aggravation in this case is intimidation of
personal injury as evidence by the preparation
made. Such preparation may consist of the
possession of a stick or a knife or any other weapon
used or sufficient for causing hurt, or it
may consist of the presence of confederates who
though unarmed, put a person in fear of restraint.
In a caseunder Sec. 382, IPC, it is not necessary that hurt must be
caused or an attempt
to cause hurt must be made. When hurt is
for committing theft, the offence
actually caused or as attempt is made to cause hurt
may become punishable to "Robbery". But in an offence
under Sec. 382 the
not have caused
preparation on the part of the accused to cause hurt, though he may or may
hurt, is sufficient. One, who keeping a knife with him commits theft
iable for conviction for the may be
offence under Sec. 382 even though there was no
to wield the
knife or to cause occasion for him
a injury. What is relevant is the preparedness of the accused in such
manner that he may be able to
cause hurt to others who
of
escaping away or taking the stolen might resist or may come in his way
1.
Diwansimgh, 1980 Cr. LJ 760
property away.
(M.P.).
 reaents
(i) The subject-matter of theft is movable propcrtv
() It was in
posscssion of any
person
(ii) The accused moved it.
(iv) He did so without the conscnt of the
pcrson in posscssion
(v) He did so
intending to take it out of his
(vi) He did
posscssion.
so
dishonestly.
(vii) That the accused had, when
death or hurt or restraint, or committing such theft, made preparation for
(vii) He made the said
fear of death, or of
hurt, or of restraint to any causing
person.
preparation either-
(a) to commit the theft; or
(b) to make good his escape, or
(c) to retain his spoil.
3. Proof of theft
Proof of actual theft is
necessary before conviction
under this section. Where the
complainant was
sleeping
bed in front of an enclosure
on a
awakened to find the accused containing his cattle and was
persons round his bed, who threw him to the
him, it was held, that the accused were guilty of an offence ground and beat
Sec. 382.2 under Sec. 323 but not of one under

4. Intention to steel
Where all the accused came together to the
spot and went together with the stolen sheep,
two of them came forward and carried
away a sheep while others waited at a distance and
there was evidence that all of them were
variously armed, it was held it could be
from these facts that all of them came with intent to commit presumed
theft, that all of them wanted to
carry away the stolen property and thus all of them were liable for theft.3
5. Preparation
A stole some rice from a house. While carrying it away he was seized by B. He dropped
the rice and stabbed B with knifc. It was held that as A dropped the rice before stabbing B, he
could not have caused the hurt for the purpose of carrying away the rice and his offence was
therefore not robbery. The conviction was altered to one under Secs. 380 and 324, IPC."
The possession of a loaded pistol by A under his garment in Illus. (a) and the posting of
confederates around Z in Illus. (b) are both instance of preparation unknown to other."
One who is keeping a knife with him while committing theft may be liable for conviction
no occasion for him to wield the
for the offence under Sec. 382, IPC, even though there was
of the accused in such a manner
knifë or to cause injury. What is relevant is the preparedness
512: 25 Cr. LJ 386.
2. Lal Singh vs. Emperor, AIR 1923 Lah.
S1 Cr. LJ 744.
3. Koli Dala vs. Rabari Bhagu, AIR 1950 Kutch 29:
4. 7 Cr. LJ 446.
5. Hushurt Shaik, 6 W.R. 85.
 LAWOFCRIMES&CRIMINOLOGY
3032 Scc. 382. &3
hurt to other who might resist or may comc in his way
vay of.
of cscaping
that he may be able to causc
stolen propcity away.
away or taking the
Where the guarantor having a bona fide claim over the truck financod by thc ancicr
instalments,proscCutic1on
it to the police station on account ofdcfault paymcnt of
in
company takes
for theft is misconccived.
of the guarantor under Sec. 382, IPC
6. Procedure
and triable
The offence under Sec. 382 is Cognizable, Non-bailable, Compoundable
Magistrate of the first class.
7. Charge
the accused)
I, (name and office of the Magistrate, etc.) hereby charge you (name of
asfollows
the property) from the
That on or about you committed theft of (specify
at
restraint to
possession of A after your having
made preparations for causing death or hurt or
of such theft or in order to the effecting of his escape
any person in order to the committing
and thereby committed
after committing such theft or in order of retaining of such property stolen, of the
an offence punishable under Sec. 382,
IPC and within the cognizance of the court

Magistrate of Ist Class.

said Court the said charge.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by the
on

Section 383

Extortion.-Whoever intentionally puis any person in fear of any injury

induces the person so
any other, and thereby dishonestly
to that person, or 10
property or valuable security
or
put in fear to deliver to any person any
or sealed which may be
converted into a valuable security
anything signed
Commits "extortion".
Z unless Z
Illustrations.-(a) A threatens publish a defamatory lbel concerning
to
to give him money A has
committed extortion.
induces Z
gives him money He thus
Z will
Zs child in wrongful confinement, unless
b) A threatens Z that he will keep
deliver to A a promissory note bringing
Z to to pay certain monies to A. Z signs
sign and
and delivers the note. A has committed extortion.

A threatens to send club-men to plough up Zs field

unless Z will sign and deliver
(c)
bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver
certain produce to B, and thereby
oBa committed extortion.
nduces Z to sign and delivery the bond. A has
his
of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign affix
or
(a) A, by putting Z in fear
delivers the paper to A. Here,as the
to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and
Seal
paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion.

6Diwansingh, 1980 Cr. LJ 760

(M.P.).
P'armeshwar Singh vs. State, 1977
U.P. Cr.C. 185 (AIl).
 3033
SCOPE

Sec. 383
SYNOPSIS

13. Injury
14. Blackmail
1. Scope 15. Threat-Promise

2. Extortion Code of
Sanction U/s 197 of the
3. Ingredients 16.
Criminal Procedure
4. Dishonestly loss" Intimidation
"Wrongful and Criminal
S. "Wrongful gain" or
17. Extortion
6. Fear 18. Delivery
7. Abetment
19. Legal Demand
extortion
S. Theft and 20. Ransom

9. Theft Act
1968, Sec. 21 21. Picketing
in fear of any injury 22. Anticipatory Bail
10. Puts any person
11. Extortion
& Fear
12. Injury-Shock

1. Scope as under
divided in three grades
The offence of extortion can be obtained by menaces

act by which delivery ofproperty is

The simplest form being
an
)
or threats. Sec.
384 deal with
Sec. 386 and 388. These sections
is presented in violence
() The aggravated type offence is accompanied by the threats of personal
the offence in which the accusation of an
unnatural offence or
death or of the
as grave as grievous hurt or for ten years or more, or
wth
offence punishable with imprisonment
of any other
death.
imprisonment for life
or
mentioned above.
offences U/Sec. 384, 386 and 388 I.P.C.
(ui) Attempt to commit punishment laid down
in Sec. 385, 387 and
defined and
The attempts have been
389 of I.P.C.
of the completed attempt and the
been given in two stages
So these six sections have the offence.
of the offence, is the basis of determining
attempt. The gravity determination of the mind
of the offender
the outcome. The
The offence of extortion is
seizure of property.
directed against the wrongful increased
serious and this type of crime of late has
and
The offence of extortion is grave especially business community. It
have created panic among public and shakes faith of
the-
enormously and would and of an individual
of the life property
affects the safety and security This crime needs to be
functionaries responsible
for law and order.
public in the State and its
to book expeditiously.
dealt with sternly and culprits brought

2. Extortion draw out

intimidation, blackmail,
Extortion" means and connotes.-compel by demandir
obtain by compulsion, corrupt
compulsion, exact by force, drawout by force,
exaction, taking by undue exerc

obtaining by threat, by oppression, oppressive

exaction
wresting money by force.
Of power, rapaciousness, wresting,
3034 LAWOFCRIMES& CRIMINOLOGY
Scc. 383
Obtaining property by menaces or by thrcats. Extortion fals in betwcen thc offenee d
theft and robbery and offcnce of cxtortion is morc akin to robbery than to theft. Extortion is of
also
allied to the two other offences of theft and cheating. The primary objcct of the threc
offenccs
of of But
thet. exiortion andcheating wrongful gain property.
is thcy differ in the
operandi adoptcd by the wrong-docr. In theft, therc is the removal of property without consent
modhus
In cheating there is the removal with consent obtaincd
by fraud, while in extortion, as here
detined, thc conscnt to dclivery is obtained
by causing of fear. The offence is carricd out by
OVer-powering the will of the owner. Forcibly taking any property will not come under this
section. It has to be shown that the
person was induced to part with the property by putting him
in fear of injury. In theft the
offender's intention is always to take without that person's
The property here means both consent
moveable and immovable. In theft, however, only the moveable
property have been mentioned. (Please See S. 378).
3. Ingredients
) Intentional,
(i) Intimidation or putting person in of fear
injury to that person or any other person,
() Inducing that person to deliver to any person any
property or valueable security or
any thing signed or sealed which may be convicted into a valuable security,
iv) Delivery of property,
(v) Such inducement must be done dishonestly.
So, the prosecution is to prove (a) the accused had threatend the complainant or any other
person in fear of injury, (b) the act was intentional, (c) the accused dishonestly induced the
complainant to deliver to any person-()any property, or (2) valuable security, or (3) anything
signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable
security.
The Chief Element in the offence of extortion are as under
) The accused intentionally.
i) The accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other
person.
) And dishonestly
iv) Induces
The true meaning of the word dishonestly has to be read in Section 24, Section 23 of this
court. Section 24 and 23 of I.P.C. are reproduced as under
Section 24. "Dishonestly". Whoever does anything with the intention of causing
- -

wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing
dishonestly'
Section 23, "Wrongful gain". Wrongful gain' is gain by unlawful means of property
to which the person
gaining is not legally entitled.
Wrongful loss", - 'Wrongful loss' is the loss by unlawful means of property to whicn
the person
losing it is legally entitled.
g wrongiully: Losing wrongfully.- A person is said to gain wrongfully wne
 3035
DISHONESILY
A person is
wrongfully.
acquircs
Sec. 383] person as wcll as
when such any
propcrty,

vvrongfully,
as well as
wrongfully kcpt out of
retains
person
is
when such
such person
bring on,
lose wrongfully of propcrty. cause,
said to doprivcd about,
wrongtiully
is actuale,
bring
when such person and
connotcs
slimulate
Induce
nmcans prompt,
fprecipilale, down
The word
prevail upon, SC 2045) laid
1986
Antulay (AIR
mofivale,
incire,
inflhuence, vs. A.R. it must appear
in R.S. Nayak to that person,
Court
to fear of any
injury future. If
The Supreme person bound to do in
said to put any he is legally that
can bc to do what
before a person threat to do or omit bound to do and says
held out
some
which he is not legally offence
that he has promise to do a thing would not amount to an

man does
is to such act
all that a that thing,
would not do
to him he
if money is not paid
ofextortion.
variance with the
4. Dishonestly which is at
in technical meaning
has been used a
honestly, uprightness and
The word Dishostely devitation from integrity,
understanding of
this word implying and has nothing to
do integrity,
ordinary connection with property word
has been used in definition of the
probity. The same
an exhaustive
section is not
and probity. This when there is an
intention
honestly, uprightness the word is applicable only
section does not say that another but property
construed it
dishonestly'. The loss to
to one person and wrongful to be considered
as
of causing wrongful gain such wrongful gain or loss are
of intention of causing the Act, which
means that cases
actions. Nothing is dishonest under
wider class of dishonest
causing within the have been intended by
a person,
can be said to
dishonest. But nothing the one immediate
is not intended to be intention. Oftwo probable intentions,
unless it was his immediate
and probable should not attribute to the
the other remote and less probable, the Court
and more probable and intention ofthe accused at the
time
intention. The sole test is what was the
accused the remoter and not the more
for which purpose it was said that only the primary
of the act complained of,
remote intention of the
accused must be looked at.
to constitute dishonesty in law, namely,
(1)
Three essential ingredients must, be present has
intention, (ii) employment of unlawfül means,
and (1n) acquisition property to which one
of
no right.
if a lawful act is
only if an unlawful act is done
or
A dishonest intention may be presumed
from his act and
intention of the accused can only be gathered
done by unlawful means.2 The 3
the surrounding circumstances
Criminal Law" Stephen wrote: "The only possible
Sir James in his book "2 History of the
at what he actually did, and by considering
way of discovering a man's intention is by looking
What must have appeared to him at the time as
the natural conscquence of his conduct".

A dishonest intention may be presumed only

if an unlawful act is done or if a lawful act is
done by unlawful means."

.Girdhari Lal, ILR 8 All. 653; Haradhan, ILR 19 Cal. 380.

2.35 Cr. LJ 1307 = 1934 ALJ 749 AlR 1934 All 711; AIR 1935 All 254 = 153 Ind Cas 763.1B

3. 1955 Andh WR 239.1C.

4. 2 History of the Criminal Law p. 111.
. Sardar Singh vs. Emperor, AIR 1934 AlI. 711 at p. 711: 1934 A.L.J. 749.
 It is not
sufficient that
RIMINOLOGY
there
putting that individual in fear should be wrongful loss
of injury must causcd to an Scc. 383
caused. Where the have the intcntion individual but thc pcre
accused
to him
(the accused), an honestly bclicves that the that
wronggful loss Son
wrongful loss to him attempt get it back cannotcomplainant
to had taken thc
bc said to bc
should ho
with the intcntion bclongin
moncy
Persuasion per se does not of
causing
governing body were involve clement of extortion.
illegal and that it be persuaded to pass resolution that the Thus wherc mcmbers of
a
rescinded, it was held that element of carlier ordcr of the
The word
dishonestly' does not extortion was not suspension was
So, necessarily imply wrongful gain to involved
a
dishonesty
person employs
in law is at
times different from the accused himself"
that word in the unlawful means, his conduct is not dishonesty of the market
Code. The dishonest within the place. Unless
ways, but the test, in each dishonest intention of a meaning assigned to
there a wrongful case, is the same person may be manifested in a variety of
gain or loss as what was his
-

expounded elsewhere. immediate intention, and was

The chief element in
the offence of
is not sufficient that there extortion is
should be wrongful loss that the inducement must be dishonest. t
that individual in fear of caused to an individual but the
injury must have the
Further the essence of the offence of intention that wrongful loss should person putting
extortion is in the actual be caused.
oroperty by the delivery of
not complete before possession
person put in fear and the offence is of the
Supreme Court held R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. such delivery The
1986) 2 SCC 716) such inducement must be Antulay (AIR 1986 SC 2045: 1986 Cr. LJ 1922.
done dishonestly.
5. "Wrongful gain" or "VWrongful loss"
Wrongful gain" or "Wrongful loss" under this section must
rise from the exercisc of unlawful means. Thus (1) relate to property, and (2
the taking out of aircraft owned by Governmen=
ya person for unauthorized flight has in fact given him the
an
is own and has
temporary use of the aircraft for
purpose temporarily deprived the owner of the aircraft, namely the Govermment-
fits legitimate use for its purposes, i.e. the use of this aircraft for the Indian Air Force squadron
aat day. Such use being unauthorised is a gain or loss by unlawful means.
A person in posscssion of property is entitled to retain such possession until a person wi
better claim or title to the property comes forward. Thus if the accused has got legal title
e propcrty which he took
away from a person in possession of the property, he cannot be h
lty of the intention to obtain wrongful gain for himself ifhe deprived the other person of
ssession of the property. Thus, in such a case what the prosecution has to prove is that
cuscd was not legally entitled to the property and that in depriving a person of his posscs
a propety, the accused had the intention of causing wrongful gain to himself. The acc-
1 1, oa loca1lr ent
 Bu
intention,
dishonest
Sec. 383] the
be held guilty of
of theft if he removes

not be guilty
cannot
shows it, he wil prosecution
If he hands of
another where the
to the property. in thce that is,
loss to the
owner
who finds his
property In cither case,
person of the other. causing
wrongful
possession i n t e n t i o n of both wrongful
from the the scts out to
prove
that property accuscd had
that the the prosccution if fide dispute bona
either seeks to prove himsclf or there was a
for show that claim to
wrongful gain bc cntitled to
had a bonafide
or of obtaining will o r that
he
loss, the accuscd the propcrty claim.
and wrongful possession
of a s s e r t i o n of
thc contested
gain or right to was in
the
about the ownership property
and that
the
removal
of the
the property
apprehension,
anxiety,
6. Fear apprehension,
punishment horor
of
c o n n o t e s - A l a r m ,

and apprehension
of injury,
means nervous,
Fear apprehension intimidated,
be
be
apprehension of danger,anticipale danger, anticipate injury,
rerror,
misgiving, panic, lose courage. of the
be sacred, be
terrified, possession
be overawed, actual delivery of
is in the
before such delivery."
extortion
of the offence of
The essence
offence is not complete
in fear and the create such
fear in
by the person put and must
from the person charged
property
may
security as the
case
should proceed
The inducement or valuable
victim as to make him give the property
the mind of the induce
his best to
be.12
to a person in
authority to do to
to speak favourably
receives money,
he cannot be said
f a person promises promise,
and in consideration ofthis
committed
him to do something, the money and thereby
injury to the person who gives
have threatened to
cause

extortion.13 members of the

element of extortion. Thus where
per does not involve of suspension was
that the earlier order
Persuasion se
to pass a resolution
persuaded involved.14
governing body were element of extortion was not
it was held that
illegaland that it is rescinded, time and the Sugar
Co-
Chief Minister at the relevant the Government and
Merely because the accused
was

of their grievances pending consideration before

operatives had some promising consideration of such grievances,
to make the donations
pressure was brought about said that the ingredients of
be
the offence of extortion
peciprocity, it could not the Sugar Co-
possibly by way of There was no evidence at all that the managements of
threats.
have been made out. in response to
the contributions had been paid
operative had been put
in any fear and

7. Abetment the prosecution, as

held it is the positive case of
in a recent case of Supreme Court the money from him
him (PW
Al and A2 who initially demanded direction
testified by P.W. 1, that it was under his instruction and
had with Al and
) and in terms of an arrangement
that he received the
the appellant who struck the deal and
was not
that he paid the money to Al. It its proprietor.
some avour to
Seema Guest House and
money to induce Al and
A2 to show
1955 Cr. LJ 839.
1. Labhshanker vs. State, AIR 1955Saurashtra 42:
12. Ali Bux vs. State, 1950 All LJ 711
13. Habibul Razaq vs. Emperor, AIR 1924 All 197: 25 Cr. LI 961.
14. Ram Kamal vs. Chandra Nath, 1971 Cr. LJ 708. SCC 716.
1986 SC 2045: 1986 Cr. LJ 1922: (1986) 2
15. R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay, AIR
 3038
LAWOFCRIMES &CRIMINOL.OX}Y
er 1
On the contrary, it was Al and A2
who had struck the dcal and the
of the money in tens
of an arrangement which he had (obviously)appcllant
was thc
rociprent
A2. By no stretch of cntered into with
imagination, thercforc, can it be said that the appellant is guiltyAlof and
offence under Section 163 1.P.C. Of the
course the acceptancc of thc moncy by the
P.W.1 for handing over the same to Al or A2 would appcllant from
offence allegedly committed by Al and A2.16
certainly constitute an abctment of the

The offence being non-cognizable so, there is no

duty cast on a village watchman to
apprehend þersons committing extortion in their presence, and a village watchman quietly looking
on extortion committed in his presence could not be prosecuted for abetment as he is not
thereby guilty of an illegal omission." So a person who advances money to another to pay to
the extortioner cannot be regarded as an accomplice, nor is his testimony vitiated on that
account. 18

In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally" aided
the commission ofthe crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed
without the interposition of the alleged abettor, is not enough compliance with the requirements
for friendly
may, for example, invite another casually
or a
of S. 107, I.P. Code. A person was extended
and that facilitate the murder of the invitee. But unless the invitation
purpose may to have
facilitate the commission of the murder, the person inviting cannot be said
With intent to abettor happens to
that an act on the part of the alleged
abetted the murder. It is not enough active complicity is the
Intentional aiding and, therefore,
facilitate the commission of the crime. 1.P. Code. Held by Supreme
under the third paragraph of S. 107,
gistof the offence of abetment is completely offset
build the housc, this
Court. 1s
Even ifit is a demand for providing money to love letter to her
Ex. D-1, where the deccased
wrote almost a her in-
or teased by
by letter dated 21.6.1981, trace that she was being
harassed,
letter there is no
husband and in that
was instigated by
laws or her husband. of a crime
because the crime
victim in fear of any
evidence
discretion to exclude the
There is no intentionally put
P r o v o c a t e u r . 2 1 The person
charged must induce the person
so
dishonestly
an agent and thercby must
other person
or
property
any
to any other person
some
to himself o r himself or
juryeither either to the
extortioner a valuable security.
deliver may beconverted into one
ut in fear to or sealed which wrongful loss caused to
o r anything
signed should be that
that there the intention
aluable security sec. 383
Penal Code, must have
sufficient under fear of injury
individual in threat of
is by
is not that unless a person
the person putting be no
extortion
offence of
extortion is
dividual, but caused.22 There can
of the offence is
should be The e s s e n c e the
ongful loss to the culprit. put in fear and
property
nducedto deliver any
of the property
by the person this offence against property
ury possession is wrongful in
actual delivery of That the
seizure
he delivery.2 (Cr.) 6
before such 1988(1) Supreme
complete & others
State of Maharashtra 1974 Cr
LJ240:
vs.
Bhargad
Chotelal
1975 Cr.
Mahendra Singh 649. SCC 495:
Chander Sirdar,
8 C. 738. Pershad, 33 C. 87: (1975)
3
Gopal Deonandan
175 SCC
(Cr)
D e o d h a r Singh,
27 C. 144; 1975 SC 816.
l i t a r
Pradesh, AIR
757 1986 Cr. LJ
 THEFT AND EXTORTION 3039
Sec. 3831

dcliver that property is not frec as cxplaincd in Scc. 90 of this code. The
and the consent to
1861, as per Sec. 45 Whosocvcr shall with
Analogous Law English Statute, Larceny Act,
of o r ather valuahle
chattel, money valuuble security
means or by force dcmand any propcrty,
of felony, and bcing convicted
to stcal thc same, shall be guilty
thing person, with intent
of any
in servitude".
penal
be
thereof shall be liable to kept
8. Theft and extortion
Extortion is thus distinguished from theft -

wrongful obtaining of consent. In theft the offendcr

(1)Extortion is committed by the
takes without the owner 's consent.
(2) The property obtained by xtortion is not limited as in theft to movable property only
Immovable property may be the subject of cxtortion.

(3) In extortion the property is obtaincd by intentionally puttinga person in fear of injury
to
In
that person or to any other, and thereby dishonestly inducting him to part with his property.
theft the element of force does not arise.
9. Theft Act 1968, Sec. 21
or another or with
(1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself
and for this
intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces;
unless the person making it does so in the
purpose, a demand with menaces is unwarranted
belief:

(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand, and
the demand.
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing
it is also immaterial
(2) The naturè of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and
demand.
whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the
be liable to imprisonment
(3) A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction onindictment
for a term not excceding fourteen years.
10. Puts any person in fear of any injury
The intention must be to induce the delivery of property. The threat must be of an injury,
which means a harm illegally caused. Extortion as defined in Sec. 383 includes putting any
in tear of injury and covers Sec. 385 which is a
less serious offence punishable only with
person
for an offence under Sec. 384.24
two years' imprisonment as againstthree years' imprisonment
caused to
The word "injury" according to Sec. 44 denotes any harm whatever illegally
clear that a threat to cause harm is not in
any person in body, mind, reputation or property. It is be
of Sec. 383. The harm threatened or caused to
itself sufficient to attract the provisions
threatencd must be from something illegally done. Section 43, defining "illegal" applies to anything
for civil action. No
which is an offencc or which is prohibited by law or which furnishes ground
caused within the meaning of Sec. 383 or 385 unless
injury can be caused or threatened to be
the act done is either an offence, such for instance, as might fall under Sec. 385or Sec. 508,
or

any other section of the Penal Code, or such as may properly be made the basis of a civil
action 25

24. Mansharam Gian Chand vs. Emperor, AIR 1941 Sind 36: 42 Cr. LJ 460.
25. Tanumal Udhasingh vs. Emperor, AIR 1944 Sind 203 46 Cr. LJ 149.
 3040
LAW OF
The
injury CRIMES &CRIMINOILOX;Y
contenmplated
inflicted, and a threat of
must be onc
to becaused unless the divinc punishiment iswhich
of a civil not
the accused
himsclf can inflict
act donc is
action27 cither such 2" No
that
person it must
Thus beforc a an
offencc or such asinjury can be causedor Cae toab or

person can be said to

madethrcatened
bound to do in the appear that he has may propcrly he
hcld out put any the
bound to do and future. If all that a man some threat to
do
person in foar of
any
basis
says that if does is to or omit to do what injury to
not amount
to an money is not promisc to do a he is
offence of extortion 28 paid to him he would not dothing which he is not leaally
Injury that thing such legally
must be one according to the Code is act would

where a threat was the extortioner cancausing of harm illegally. It may even be
which
cattle which he had held out by the himself inflict or he can cause the tortious act t
extortion.23
taken away unlessextortioner that he would not injury to be inflicted
he was release
paid money for its release the complainant's
The intimidation which will amount to
the nature of the may be of any kind. It
offence will vary with may be of an acusation of
person threatening
should the nature of the accusation. It is crime, which case in
the threat, and the himself receive the not
necessary that the
other receives the money. It or
two more conspire and one
11. Extortion & Fear
money, they would be liable for utters
extortion.
Extortion as defined in Sec. 383
Sec. 385 which is a less serious includes putting any person in fear of injury and covers
offence punishable only with
against three years imprisonment for an offence under Sec. two years' imprisonment as
384.30
The 'fear must be of such a nature
and extent as to unsettle the mind of the person on
whom it operates, and takes away from his acts that element of free, voluntary action which
alone constitutes consent
Before a person can be said to put another person into fear of an injury for the purpose of
Sec. 383 of the Penal Code, it must appearthat he has held outsome threat to do or to omit to
does is to
do what he is to do in the future. On the other hand, if all that a man
legally bound
paid to him he
promise do a thing which he is not legally bound do and says if moneyisof extortion
to not
to
Would not do that thing, he cannot be said to
have committcd the offence

12. Injury-Shock the effects

by Doctors, means emotional disturbances,
The word "shock", as understood control ofthe
to the delicate vasovagal or clectrical
emotional stability,
injury- to
in the
wrapped up
of a bloW in
bring about the
consequences
traumas that
Circulat1on, to
tissues. It is these
what
word "shock"
they must be prepared to explain
in the Court, tissuc destruction,
When Doctors use the word "shock" reflex, loss ofblood,
disturbance, vasovagal
emotional Sin 203: (1943)
they can-simple
Tanumal
Udhasingh,
AIR 1944

1 8 0
( 9 2 5 )
26 Cri. LJ
755 (Mad);
an immune reaction, drug damage, or the conscquences of thesc changes on the cardiac output,
the blood pressure, the peripheral circulation and return flow; or the more profound and lasting
backterial or drug
effects of such changes anoxia, capillary damage, histaminc substancc,
- -

but the law accepts a chain or

toxicity. The ultimate cffect of injury may indecd be complcx, It is only
causc and howevcr tenuous, both in criminal and in civil law.
cffcct,
events as linking
occurs that this chain is broken.
when sonmc entirely unexpcctocd happening

thrcat of harm, though distinguishable in law, havc often

Now, a thrcat ofinjury3 and a
But the mode of proof in the two cascs is differcnt
the same operation upon the human mind.
to that the accused put the complainant in fear
In a case under this section it is necessary prove
him money. Morcover, whilc in a casc of bribery
ofinjury with the object of inducing him pay
to

the complainant is an accomplice and his evidence requires corroboration, the complainant
under this section labours under no such disability.33
Where a police-officer arrested certain persons, refused to accept bail, threatened that
and
they would not be relcascd from the lock-up until they paid a certain amount of money
released them only on payment of the money, it was held that the officer was guilty ofextortion.

13. Injury
The section must be that which the accused can inflict or
injury contemplated by this
cause to be inflicted. A mere threat at large is not sufficient
to attract the provisions of Secs.
and not on the hopes of his
383, 385 or 508 of this Code. The extortioner works on the fears
victim. It is not necessary that the threat should be directed against
the victim, if it is intended to
influence him.
Even a terror ofa criminal
The word"injury" under this section is not necessarily physical.
charge whether true or false amounts to a fear injury
of
not confined to physical injury,36 that the
The word "injury" in Sec. 383 Penal Code, was him
to the 'thana' on a charge of theft had put
accused by threatening to take the complainant
amounted to wrongful confinement for the purpose
of
in fear of injury and therefore their act
extorting the complainant.37
misconduct not amounting to an offence against
The threat may be to accuse a person of
be to accuse before a judicial tribunal. Even
the criminal law.3s The threat need not necessarily
a threat to charge before a
third person is enough.
to a thana on a charge of theft put
The accusced by threatening to take the complainant confincment for the
him in fear of injury. It was held that
their act amounted to wrongful
movables of the
from the complainant.Where no articles or
purpose of extorting money

31. S. 44.
I.C. 237.
32. Nga Kan Tha, (1912) 6 Bur. I.T. 92: 20
33. Tapesi, 15 A.LJ. 127:33 I.C.
429. AlR 1960 SC 154: 1960
Oudh 163: (1942) 43 Cri. LJ
139 (Oudh); Ramesh Chandra Arora,
34. Jagdish Narain AIR 1942 1751 (SC),
1954 sC 700: 1954 Cri. LJ
Cri. LJ 177 (SC); Purshottam AIR
Rex vs. James Gardener (1824) 1 Car & P 479.
35. Quen vs. Mobarak 7 WR (Cr) 28;
36. Ibid.
1952 Cr. LJ 1391.
37. Habib Khan vs.State, AlR 1952 Pat 379:
38. R. vs. Tomlinson (1895) 1 QB 706.
Tobinson (1837) 3 Mood. & Rob 14.
39. R. vs.
1952 Cr. LJ 1391 (SC).
40. Habib Khan vs. State, AIR 1952 Pat 379:
 y was
A, a Head extorted, the conviction Sec. 383
some blank Master of a school under sections
not act as papers and called B, a 384/149 was the
threatencd lady
the offenceper his wishes, A would her that if she didteacher at his
under this not sign residcnt and askcd
section.42 malign and them,
blackmail her. It was A told B that if her to
sign
The
will under making use of real or held that A
had
shc would
threat, in case of supposed influencc to committed
A
corrupt police refusal, of loss of an obtain money from a
and
threatencd to officer, intending to extort appointment, amounts to person against his
relations would come prosecutive him for an money from a extortion
intended to be forward to imaginary person, took him into
offence, intending and
this respect theextorted out of the relation,
ransom him,
which was done. knowing custody
that hir
menaces in theEnglish
English
view is
coincident,
and yet the
it
Here,
injury may not be the money may be
Statute
nvolving, no doubt, a threat of includes not being held directed
by Lord Russel, against him.
erson threatened. merely
And as was injury, but of injury not threats to person and
C.J., that "the word
danger by an accusation of added in the same confined to the person property, or
but also
A terror or misconduct, not
case, the threats may relate toproperty of the
threat
e act of putting a of a criminal amounting to a crime. any threat of
n
charge whether
person in terror of a true
false amounts to fear
or
may, for the criminal
purpose charge of injury and
ereby frightening the of extorting money form his amounts to an offence of extortion.
extortion. father and
making him accedefather, feign an attempt to commit The
. Blackmail
to his
request. He would them besuicide,
guilty
t
Ordinarily the blackmailer's demand is
'the nature of for
the act or omission demandedmoney or other
property but S. 21(2)
y appear because the is provides
offence may be immaterial'. This is not as far-reaching
refers to gain committed
ent to cause loss, and this only where D has a view to as

oncemed with the invasion of economicand loss in money or other property. Thegain or an
Durs, other provisions of the criminal interests so if D by menaces Theft Act
law must be looked demands, say, sexual
In the case of a
bomb to.
ngoff bombs when premises are threat, the extortions will
closed except for skeleton
usually try to avoid killing
people, either by
buildings can be evacuated. The threat is to guards, or by giving warning so
ded unless a repeat the bombing when
ransom is paid. the premises are
The
majority of ransom payments are still made in
tioners will demand that the ransom should be currency, either
in used notes of low foreign local. The
or
Cutive numbers. They will make more denominations, not with
hat a than usually
specific person whose aggressive threats and may well try to
face they know must deliver the
hostage
ral wecks is seldom
released
ransom alone.
immediately. The delay may vary from a few
but is, on
Vishnu
Ram Bhoir average,
Shiv average, on
one or two days after hours to
Chander
Mcer Kala vs. 1979 SCcc
(C 642: 1979 Cri
payment of a ransom. He is almost
Ram Kishat
Abbas Ali vs. (Cri) LJ 1305 (SC).
han,
Omed Ali AIR 1985 sC 1268: 1985 Cri: LJ
(1872) 18 WR 1490 (SC): 1985 SCC (Cri) 491
(Cr) 17.
Sec. 383] BLACKMAIL 3043
always released from in
place where the car is unlikcly to attract any attention or its
a car a
details be observed or reported. The commonest placc is on a descrted road in an
urban arca,
within walking distance of a tclephonc, in the dark, with the
hostage ordercd not to remove his
blindfold for a stated number of minutes.
Kidnapping and extortion have grown and will go on growing, as they give a high yield at
a low risk both to criminals and
political terrorists.
A threat to use force on a third
person addressed to the person in charge of the
is insufficicnt if no attempt is made to put the third property
person in fear. The requirement imports an
element of intention, and is not satisfied where force used for the
has the incidental and unintended purpose of committing theft
consequence of harming or causing fear to another.
if force is used for some
illegal other than
purpose theft (such
Similarly,
money to buy off the assailant, and the assailant rape) as and the
victim offers
accepts it, he is not guilty of robbery.
The force must be used or the threat
made "immediately before or at the time
theft. If the victim is knocked down or of" the
threatened
pursuit o recapture), there may be both theft and an after
the time of the theft
(say, to prevent
If the effect of the force is still offence the against person, but not
preventing the victim from robbery.
the fact that the theft does not
take place for some time will
making resistance (as ifhe is tied up),
rule applies to threats of force.
As has already been obviouslybe immaterial. A similar
knowing the effect of those threats to be said, it is robbery if a person makes threats,
is still continuing,
recovering before the effects of those threats.
and he takes property from his victim whoo
When the appellants surrounded
Yakub and his party they extorted a
price for sparing them and that this sum of Rs. 300 as
the case falls within the amount was paid to the appellants. In these
ambit of Ss. 384/149 and not under
S. 395/149 of the I.P.
circumstances,
If Bhargava himself had Code.44
handed over the fixed voluntarily
took Dr. Verma
accompanied by R-1 to R-3 and
that might be initiated
deposit certificates so that he could be relieved of any criminal
case that there
against him, then the
prosecution cannot be said to have
proceedings
was a
conspiracy and in pursuance of that established its
Bhargava by putting him under the money was extorted from
fear of injury.45
The word "injury" in S. 383 is not confined
charge, whether true or false amounts to a fear to physical injury. Even a terror of a criminal
of injury.45 The threat
Such a nature and or menace must be of
extent as to unsettle the
away from his acts that element of mind of the person on whom it operates and takes
free, voluntary action, which alone
The injury constitutes consent.4
inflicted.48 Wherecontemplated
must be one which the
it is proved that the accused can himself inflict or
cause to be
of injury of person
any kind the offence of extortion
who is threatened is not shown to
have any fear
under threat of cannot be held to be established.a"
picketing is extortion. Levy of fine
44. Vishnu Shiv Ram Bhoir vs.
State of
Cr. LJ 1305: 1979 Cr. Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1943: 1979 SCC
45. State
LR (SC) 723. (Cr) 642: (1979) 3 SCC 365: 1979
of U.P.
vs. PheruSingh, AIR 1989 SC 1205: 1989 SCC
(1989) 3 SC87: 1989 Cr.
App R. (SC) 157:(1989) 2 Crimes(Cr)
420: 1989 Cr. LJ 113S:
1989 Cr.
46. A 1952 Pat 379 124. LR (sC) 405: JT
47. (1863) 9 Cox (380): 1952 Cri. LJ 1391 ** A 1951
268 (272):
(1863) 169 ER 1399. Ajmer 64 (2) (65): 52 Cri. LJ 873.
48. A 1944 Sind
49. 203(204, 205): 46 Cri. LJ 149 (DB) ** A
(1866) 3 Bom HCR 45 (49). 1925 Mad 480
(482): 26 Cri. LJ 755.
S0. A 1922 All.
529 (531): 24 Cri. LJ
62.
 3044 LAWOF CRIMES & CRIMINOLOGY Scc. 383

Where the accused compelled two boys of 14 ycars of age to take out their clothes and
took their photographs together, in nudc, and subscquently threatened their guardian to publish
the photograph if he did not pay a certain amount and the guardian paid the amount demanded,
the offence committed is of cxtortion.

15. Threat-Promise
Before a person can be said to put any person to fear of any injury to that person, it must
appear that he has held out some threat to do or omit to do what he is legally bound to do in
future. If all that a man does is to promise to do a thing which he is not legally bound to do and
says that if money is not paid to him he would not do that thing, such act would not amount to an
offence of extortion 52

In this case there is no evidence at all in this that the

case managements of the sugar
cooperatives had been put in any fear and the contribution had been paid in response to threats.
Merely because the respondent was Chief Minister at the relevant time and the sugar co-
operatives had some of their grievances pending consideration before the Government and
pressure was brought about to make the donations promising consideration of such
grievances,
possibly by way of reciprocity. The offence of extortion is not made out. The evidence led by
the prosecution falls short the
of requirements of law in regard to the alleged offence of extortion.
The then Chief Minister of Maharashtra gave
promises to ventilate grievances of managements
of sugar co-operatives and obtained donations from them and
there was no evidence that any
fear or threat was administered, it was held that the trial court did not comnmit
any error of law
in not framing a charge of extortion
against the accused as no case was made out.53
I Section 34 of this code is applicable.54
The common intention must be anterior in time to the commission of
the crime. It is also
ually settled law that the intention of the individual has to be inferred from the overt act or
conduct or from other relevant circumstances. Therefore, the
must be taken into consideration in order to arrive at
totality of the circumstances
a conclusion whether the accused
common intention to commit the offence under which had a
they could be convicted.55
Common intention is to be inferred from
the circumstances particularly the played by
the accused and the
surrounding circumstances, namely, nature of the weaponpart used and the
injury inflicted as well as the meeting of the minds
among the accused who are being held
constructively liable. The facts, in the present case, would reveal that the
the pocket of PW-5 who called the appellant tried to
deceascd and the deceased tried to catch hold pick
appellant and it was a sudden act on the part of the William who of the
pocket and inflicted a single injury on the deceased. picked out a knife from his
held that the Under those circumstances, it cannot be
a knife and
appellant and Sukhchain Singh had
prior knowledge that William was armed with
the part played
by William cannot be said to be a
element of common intention
on the part of the
conjoint act so as to attract the
51. ILR appellant as well as Sukhchain Singh.30
(1969) 19 Raj. 841 (844)
abibul Razak vs. Emperor, AIR(DB).
page 2077): 1986 SCC (Cr) 256: 1924 AI. 197 and R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay, AIR 1986 SC
Ibid (1986) 2SCC 716: 1986 Cri LJ 1922 2045 (Para 60 at
. Koli Dala vs. Rabari (SC).
ognder Bhagu, AIR 1950 Kutch
ashmiraSingh vs. State 29: 51 Cr. LJ 744.
Singh vs. Stateof Haryana, AIR 1994 SC 461:
of Punjab, AlR 1994 1994 Cr. LJ 134.
SC 1651: 1994 Cr. LJ T974.
Sec. 383 THREAT-PROMISE 3045
Question is whether it is obligatory on the part of the prosccution to cstablish commission
of overt act to press into servicc S. 34 of the l.P Codc. It is no doubt truc that Court likes to
know about overt act to dccide whether the concerncd person had sharcd the common intention
in question. Question is whcther overt act has always to be cstablishcd'? I am of the vicw that
establishment of a overt act is not a requirement of law to allow S. 34 to opcratc inasmuch this
section gets attracted when "a criminal act is donc by several pcrsons in furtherancc of common
intention ofall". What has to be, therefore, establishcd by the prosccution is that all the conccrnod
persons had sharcd the common intention. Court's mind rogarding the sharing of common
intention gets satisfied when overt act is established qua each of the accuscd. But then, there
may be a case wherc the proved facts would themsclves speak of sharing of common intention
res ipsa loquitur
Now, take this case, the appellant is a school teacher. He is supposed to be armcd with a
pen and not a knife. He would be normally found in his school and not on a road at night, and
that too in the company of another who is also armed with knife. Not only this seeing the
deceased coming, the appellant and the accused come out from behind a tree and proclaim to
the deceased they were waiting for him. Thercfore, the deceased is be-labourcd, and let it is be
conceded, only by the co-accused57
The Driver stopped the bus even though he was told by the passengers not to do so, as
they saw a mob of persons armed with weapons standing near the entrance of that street. He
got down from the bus, crossed the road, went near the mob, and had some talk with it. Soon
thereafter the said mob which, included accused Nos. 2 to 11 came near the bus and surrounded
it. They attacked the bus and were also shouting "kill Hindus", "cut Hindus" and "set fire to the
bus.
Appellant No. I had also conspired with the said unlawful assembly and was, therefore
responsible for the acts committed thereafter by the members of the said unlawful assembly.

Appellant No. 1, driver of the bus stopped the bus with a view to facilitate an attack on
from it and went up to the mob- Convictions
passengers by the said mob- He got down
recorded are legally sustainable.53
under some kind of
Racketeering in criminal world is the practice of systematic extortion
defines racketeering as an organised crime
threat usually of personal injury or property. Taft
in which the criminal elements perform a service to such members of society who are normally
Thus racketeering differs from an organised
engaged in some legitimate business activity. involved in it and hence it is
predatory crime in as much as some kind of service essentially as the service involved in a
is
not completely exploitative. It also differs from a
criminal syndicate
in legitimate activities while in case of
racket is rendered to those who are normally enegaged
It is therefore evident that opportunities
syndicate the service is altogether illegal and prohibited. is marginally within
not within the legal limits or
for racketeering incrcase when business is Persons who are
for its protection is not possible.
limits and legitimate recourse to police help services even at the
racketeers are sometimes
convinced of the value of thcir
Exploited by the is
cost of their own exploitation. Thus
it can be satcly adduced that organiscd recketeering
demand.
exploitation for some legitimate illegitimate
or
nothing but an illegal
7 SC 613.
S7. Krishnan State of Kerala, JT (1996)
vs. 23.8.1996.
(1996) 2 Supreme (Cr.) 206. Decided on
S8. Mehbub Samsuddin Malik vs. Stateof Gujarat,
59. Vold, G.B.: Theoretical Criminology, (1958), p. 228.
 LAWOFCRIMES& CRIMINOLOGY [Sec 383
3046

business organiscrs as well as the

In the prescnt compctitive economy the individual
labour-unions frequently depend on criminal rackets for improving
their bargaining capacity. At
leads to threats of violence
times this involves use of force and compulsion which ultimately
are detailed below.
and coercion. Some of the major rackets which commonly operate
which is committed by two or more
Generally speaking an organised crime is an act of an
criminals as a venture in an organised manner. It is an illegal act which the members
joint
uniawful association commit with their mutual co-operation and adventure.
Dr. Walter Reckless defines organised crime as an unlawful misadventure which is carried
on by a boss, his leiutenants and operators who form a hierarchical structure for a specific
p e n o d 50

According to Sellin organised crime resembles those economic adventures or enterprises

which are organised to carry on illegal activities.
Organised crimes have been in existence for decades in almost every society. Criminals
organise themselves into formal or informal associations to carry on their illegal activities violating
the law ruthlessly. Like any other business organisation the professional criminals organise
themselves into criminal gangs to carry on their anti-social activities with skill and efficiency for
profit making. Commenting on this point Donald Taft observed: "the organisation of criminals
introduced in the field of crime those factors of leadership, group discipline, obedience, loyalty,
division of labour, fellowmenship, sacnfice, co-operation and group planning which spell eficiency
in our normal economic, political and social life." Most criminals organise themselves into
criminal groups with a view to specialising in their traits and accept a particular crime as their
Occupation. The gang of criminals practising one particular criminal activitiy does not interfere
with the criminal organisations practising other crimes. However, on account of inter-connection
between the criminal activities carricd on by two or more organised groups of criminals, one
group may at times be seen to carry on its activities in close liaison with that of another. Thus
organised group can commit offences of extortion and all are liable if they agrec and intend to
commit the extortion.
It must be reiterated that crime and poverty are endemic to any society, whatever be its
form whether it is capitalistic or socialistic and whatever may be the extent of its material
developmcnt, there is bound to be poverty. Just as poverty cannot be wiped out so also crimes
can not be
wiped off though they can be reduced with all out effort towards material development
and prosperity of a country.
Legal philosophers of all ages have accepted that economic conditions have a direct
bearing on crime.? Aristotle, the Greek philosopher commented that poverty endangers
revolution and crimes
for the sake of
originate from poverty. He asserted that crimes are committed not merely
mecting the necessities of life but also for acquiring superfluous
Delicved crimes are mostly committed because of the acquisitive
that things. He
grecd for acquiring tendency of man and his
surplus wealth.
urcek philosopher, Plato also belived that human
SDsequent 'greed' was the potential cause ot
0. Waltcr Reckless. years thinkers like Voltare Rousseau, Beccaria and Bentham also
.Ta
$2.. and
GoswamiEngland
The Crime
Problem p. 319. expressea
P. Criminology
"Criminology' (4th Edn.) p. 183.
(1964), p. 16
 LAWOFCRIMES& CRIMINOLOGY (Scc. 383
3046

In the prescnt compctitive economy the individual busincss organiscrs as well as the
labour-unions frequently depend on criminal rackets for improving thcir bargaining capacity. At
times this involves use of force and compulsion which ultimatcly leads to threats of violence
and coercion. Some of the major rackets which commonly operate are detailed below.

Generaly speaking an organised crime is an act which is committed by two or more

criminals as ajoint venture in an organised manner. It is an illegal act which the members of an
unlawful association commit with their mutual co-operation and adventure.
Dr. Walter Reckless defines organised crime as an unlawful misadventure which is carried
on by a boss, his leiutenants and operators who form a hierarchical structure for a specific
period 60

According to Sellin organised crime resembles those economic adventures or enterprises

which are organised to carry on illegal activities
Organised crimes have been in existence for decades in almost every society. Criminals
organise themselves into formal or informal associations to carry on their illegal activities violating
the law ruthlessly. Like any other business
organisation the professional criminals organise
themselves into criminal gangs to carry on their anti-social activities with skill and
efficiency for
profit making. Commenting on this point Donald Taft observed: "the organisation of criminals
introduced in the field of crime those factors of leadership, group discipline, obedience, loyalty,
division of labour, fellowmenship, sacrifice, co-operation and group planning which spell
n our normal economic, political and social life.51 Most criminals organise themselves efficiency
into
riminal groups with a view to specialising in their traits and accept a particular crime as their
Dccupation. The gang of criminals practising one particular criminal activitiy does not interfere
vith the criminal organisations practising other crimes. However, on
between the criminal activities carried on by two or more organisedaccount
of inter-connection
groups of criminals, one
roup may at times be seen to carry on its activities in close liaison with that of another. Thus
rganised group can commit offences of extortion and all are liable if
ommit the extortion. they agrec and intend to
It must be reiterated that crime and poverty are endemic to
om- whether any society, whatever be its
it is capitalistic or socialistic and whatever
evelopment, there is bound to be poverty. Just as poverty cannot may be the extent of its material
be wiped out so also crimes
an not be wiped off though they can be reduced with all out
effort towards
material development
ad prosperity of a country.
Legal philosophers of all ages have
aring on crime.2 Aristotle, the Greek accepted that economic conditions have a direct
wolution and crimes originate from poverty.philosopher
He
commented that poverty
endangers
r the sake of mecting the necessities asserted that crimes are committed not
of life but also for merely
Cvedforthat crimes are mostly committed acquiring
eed acquiring because of the acquisitive superfluous things. He
surplus wealth. tendency man and his
of
rime.Kphilosopher,
In subscquent Plato also belived that
60. Walter nt years thinkers like human 'greed' was the
G1.
2. Tall Reckless.
and The Crime Voltare Rousseau, Beccaria and
potential cause of
CioswamiEngland Problem p. 3T9, Bentham also expressed
P.
CriminolonulCriminology (4h
Sec. 383] SANCTIONU/S. 197 Cr.PC. 3047

Similar views and agrecd that cconomic strnucturc is onc of the important causcs of criminality.
the personality of an
Poverty gives risc to hunger, misfortune, discasc and anger, which destroy
individual and make him irresponsible to do undesirable acts. Under the circumstanccs hc is
forced to lend himsclf into criminality. Thus according to thesc philosophcrs economic factor
incrcascs in times of
has a close bearing on criminality and crimes increase when poverty
economic depression.
Procedure
16. Sanction U/s 197 of the code of Criminal
come within the performance of
Abusing a citizen by a public servant certainly does not
for more
latter's duty as such. But, where the public servant was prosecuted simultaneously
than one offences and if any offence out of them was such
which required sanction, then
take cognizance of
without the prior sanction of the competent authority, the Magistrate cannot
all the offences against that public servant and try him for offences. Sanction for prosecution
for the offences under Secs. 383 and 500, IPC was clearly called and since the accused
was

under Sec. 504, IPC

being prosecuted for those two offences along with the third offence
for the prosecution
together, prior sanction under Sec. 197 of the Cr. P.C. would be necessary
of the accused jointly for all the three offences.53
17. Extortion and Criminal Intimidation
X and his daughter
A charged with committing criminal intimidation to X by threateningof Y withi intent to
was

Y with injury to their reputation by publication of the nude photographs of

cause alarm to them. No in the charge.
In the evidence, however, it appeared that the object
was convicted under S. 506 of the Code. Holding
A was to make X pay 'hush money' to A, A
as correct, the Supreme Court
observed
the conviction under Sec. 506, Penal Code
some of its aspects comes within the
definition of
It is not unoften that a particular act in
or taken as a whole, it
a particular offence in the
Indian Penal Code, while in other aspects
definition. There are obvious differences
between the offence of extortion
comes within another
503. It is
defined in Sec. 383 and the offence of criminal intimidation as defined in Sec.
as
those differences in the present case.
All that we need say is that on
unnecessary to deliate on
was affimed by the High Court,
the appellant
the finding of the learned Magistrate, which finding the conviction
offence of criminal intimidation. We, therefore, hold that
was clearly guilty of the Court that no
Sec. 506 is correct, We further agree with the High
of the appellant under if any, in the charge as to
the
reason of the defect,
prejudice was caused to the appellant by and had full
aware of the case
made by the prosecution
intent of the appellant. He was fully
the cvidence given against him.0*
opportunity of rebutting

18. Delivery victim under

must be delivery of property by the
section there antecedent to
For the application of these from the extortioner
The fear should have proceeded of
the apprehension of fear. extortion is in the
actual delivery of possession
of the offence of
the delivery. So, the e s s e n c e before such delivery85
and the offence is not complete
in fear offender or to
the property by the person put from the person
threatened to the
may be direct
The delivery of the property
LJ 180.
Ruldu Ram and
another, 1983 Cr.
63. Pawan Kumar vs.
154: 1960 Cr. LJ 177.
AIR 1960 SC 1305 (SC): 1979 SCC (Cri.) 642.
64. Romesh Chandra vs. State,
AlR 1979 SC 1943: 1979 Cri. LJ
65. Vishnu Shiv Ram Bhoir
vs. State of Maharashtra,
 another person bv his direction, or it may bc
by placing the property in the some place of
deposit. or by otherwise putting it at the immediate disposal of the offender. The subjects of
extortion are, it scems the samc as the subjcct of theft, although the word 'movablc
is not used
in the definition. Morgan and
-

Macpherson, 345. It has to be shown that the person has

induced to part ovcr the property by putting him in fear of
injury.
Where the accused assaults a person and
forcibly takes his thumb-impression on a blank
piece of paper which can be converted into a valuable security, there is no
to deliver the inducing the victim
paper with his thumb-impression, and the offence committed is not extortion
using criminal force or assault.67 but
The word "property' occurringin the section must be taken to mean both
immovable movable and
property.65 A terror
or threat of criminal
charge whether true or false amounts to
fear of injury and a threat of
section.69
putting a person in fear of a
criminal charge falls under this
A document which
enables a person or which
expectation collecting substantial amount of
of gives a person a reasonable hope or
as used in the money is itself property. The word
definition of extortion in Sec. 383 of
the Penal Code is not defined.
"property
therefore, canbe understood in a wide sense. Understood Property,
in a wide sense, letters such as those
written by B. while in
confinement
would constitute property in the hands of
abductors and3,
therefore, it can be reasonably argued that the
from him by R and his four associates wrongful confinement of B. and obtaining letters
under the threat to kill him
constituted dacoity.
The term "officer or
be interpreted to mean not
employee" sub-S. (1) of S. 630 of the
in
Companies
Act, 1956 must
only
the present officers
and employees of the
include the past officers and company but also to
employees of the company. The words
appearing in Cl. (a) plainly makes it an offence if an officer or "any property of a company"
was
permitted to use the property of the company employeé of a company who
occupies the same after the termination of his during employment, wrongfully retains or
his
such property,
meaning the property of the employment. It is the wrongful withholding of
is an offence under S. company after termination of the
630(1)(b) of the Act. The employment which
Baldev Krishna Sahi vs. construction placed by the Supreme Court in
construction possible.71
Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 2245
is the only
An analysis of S. 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of
S. 13(1)(e) of the new Act of 1988 shows that it isCorruption Act, 1947 which
corresponds to
constitutes not the mere
of the Act but it is acquisition
an offence under the of property that
account for such provisions the failure to
possession that makes the possession satisfactorily
To substantiate a objectionable as
offending the law.
must prove the
charge under S. 5(1)(e) of the prevention of corruption Act, the
following namely (1) the prosecution must establish that prosecution
1S a
public servant, (2) theingrcdients,
nature and the accused
extent of the
66. Ibid. pecuniary resources or property which were
.Jadunandan
68. AIR Singh, 1941 Pat. 129: 42 Cr.
69. AIR
1951 lyd. 91 (FB).
LJ 361: 193 IC 241: 21 PLT 970:
1952 Pat 17 5 BR 514
 DELIVEKI
Sec. 383
his known sources of income,
be proved as to what were

found in his possession, (3) it must

that such resources or
objcctively,
and (4) it must prove, quite
1.e., knoWn to the prosecution, to his known sources of
accused wcre disproportionate
in possession of thc of criminal
property found cstablishcd, the offence
are satisfactorily
above ingredicnts able to account for such
resources
income. Oncc the
unless the accuscd is
misconduct under S. 5(1)(¢)
is complete, ingredicnts. the
prosccution has proved the required
atter the
or property. In
other words, only such r e s o u r c e s or property
shifts to
for
accounting the possession of
burden of satisfactorily
the accused.2
SC 2245, thc
Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1987
Sahi vs. Shipping 1956 and
In Baldev Krishna of S. 630 of the Companies Act,
considered the scope of sub-S. (1) of the
Supreme Court who obtains possession of any property
or an employee of a company
held that an officer to which he is not
entitled but for employment,
of his employment,
company during
the course
to the company, after termination of his
of such property
if he docs not deliver possession
the
possession of such property. Therefore,
he would be in wrongful
employment the company, condition precedent of an employee.
of employer and employee is a
existence of the relationship
in his possession wrongfully withholds it
of the company
If the employee, having any property or directed in
the articles of
those expressed
or knowingly applies
it to purposes other than under S.
he will be liable for the punishment
and authorised by the Companies
Act,
company
630.73 19-A of the Foreign
there is no provision under S.
It has been urged for the appellant that documents be retumed to the
section of the Act that the
Act any other
or
order from the Magistrate
and that,
Exchange Regulation seized, without any is
whose custody they were No such express provision
party from authority.
their return can be made by
any be
therefore, no order for the law provides that they are not to
if
necessary. Documents
seized have to be returned under the statute is sufficient justification
retained after a certain period of
time. Such a direction return them to the person
from
the documents to
and authority for the person
in possession of are necessary
for retaining
documents of

had been seized. Provisions

whose possession they entitled.74
for returning them to the person
others and not lands not belonging
who illegally takes possession ofany of
mcans a person agreements in respect
"Property grabber" local authority or any other such
but belonging to Government, thereon for salc or hire or gives
to himself unauthoriscd
structures
and occupation
who constructs construction or use
such lands or basis for
or leave and
licence
person for
taking illegal
lands to any person on rental financial aid to any collects
or who knowingly
gives structures
thereon or who
structures
of unauthorised construction of unauthorised other charges by
such lands or for compensation or
possession of of such lands rent, force wvithout
collect from any
occupier
evict such occupier by above
any
or attempts to
evicts or attempts
to
the doing of any of the
intimidation o r
who manner

criminal
or who
abets in any
lawful proccdure
Tesortingtothe
SCC (Cr) 801:
mentioned things. AIR 1993
SC 313: 1992
Hyderabad,
Superintendent of Police, 284.
vs. State Deputy
613: 1992
Cr. App. R. (SC)
Krishna Reddy
12. M. Cr. LR (SC)
613: 1992
AIR 1996 SC
339.
(1965)1 Cr.
LJ 100.
(1992) 2 UJ (SC) 754
V.M. Shah vs.,
State of
Maharashtra,

AIR 1965 SC 1:(1964) 7 SCR 724:

1496: 1993 SCC (Cr) 1126: (1993) (Supp) sCC
73.
Lakshmi
Narayan, AlR 1994 SC 461.
74. Nilratan vs.
Ishwarlal Dave
vs.
State
of Gujarat,
305: JT (1993)
3 SC 421: 1993
Cr. LR (SC)
Cr. App R (SC)
Navalshankar
75.
2170: 1993
1994 Cr. LJ