DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

2023-24

FINAL DRAFT

Indian Penal Code - II

“Extortion”

Submitted by- Submitted to-

Mohd Yousuf Dr Malay Pandey

B.A.LL. B (Hons.) 5th Semester Assistant Professor (Law)

Enrolment No.- 210101088

1
Acknowledgement

I have taken a lot of efforts for this project. However, this would have not been possible
without the kind support and help of many individuals. I would like to express my sincere
thanks to all of them. I express my deep gratitude to my teacher for the subject Mr. Malay
Pandey for giving me his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement
throughout the project.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my parents and members of RMLNLU for their
kind support and encouragement which helped me in the completion of this project. My
thanks and appreciations also go to my colleague in developing the project and people who
willingly helped me out with their abilities.

Mohd Yousuf

2
 Table of contents

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................4

SECTION 383 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE ............................................................................5

INGREDIENTS OF EXTORTION ...........................................................................................6

PUTS ANY PERSON IN FEAR OF INJURY ..........................................................................6

DISHONESTLY INDUCES THE PERSON SO PUT IN FEAR TO DELIVER TO ANY

PERSON ANY PROPERTY .....................................................................................................8

DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEFT AND EXTORTION ......................................................11

WHEN EXTORTION IS ROBBERY......................................................................................13

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................13

BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................15

3
INTRODUCTION

This section defines the offence of extortion. It says that whoever intentionally puts any
person in fear of any injury, either to that person or to any other person, and there by
dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person either any property or
valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable
security, commits extortion.

The offender must intentionally put any person in fear of injury. This fear of injury may be to
that person or to any other person. The offender must thereby dishonestly induce the personso
put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security, or anything signedor
sealed which may be converted into a valuable security.

The offence is complete only when the delivery takes place. Proof of dishonest intention, that
is to say, intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss vide section 24, is a must.
Extortion can be committed with respect to any property, movable or immovable, or valuable
security, or anything signed or sealed which could be converted into a valuable security. By
using the expression ‘to any person’ the section makes it clear that it is not necessary that the
giver of the threat and the receiver of the property may be the same person.

The expression ‘valuable security’ has the same meaning as given under section 30 of the
Code. The injury may be intended to the person put in fear or to any person other than him
too, and it is not necessary that they should be related to each other. The word ‘injury’ has the
same meaning as given under section 44 of the Code. The delivery must be made by the

4
person put in fear. The use of the words ‘anything signed or sealed which may be converted
into a valuable security’ shows that incomplete deeds may also be subject of extortion. Where
the accused promised to do something which he was not bound to do under law, and also said
that he would not do it unless money was paid to him, the same cannot be termed extortion.
Where the accused threatening to take the complainant to the police station on a charge of
theft put him in fear of injury, it was held that the act amounted to wrongful confinement in
order to extort money from the complainant. The terror of a true or false criminal charge
amounts to putting the victim in fear of injury. Even a threat of charge of misconduct not
amounting to an offence may be extortion, and this threat may be before any person, not
necessarily before a court.

Where the accused persons put a lot of pressure on two members of the governing council of
an educational institution to revoke the earlier order of suspension of the principal, it may
have an undue pressure but it could not amount to extortion. Abduction for ransom makes the
offender guilty for the offences of abduction and extortion. But threat of divine displeasure
was not held to be extortion.

SECTION 383 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

Extortion. - Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to
any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person
any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a
valuable security, commits “extortion”.

Illustrations

a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He

thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.

b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign
and deliver to A a promissory note binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z signs and
delivers the note. A has committed extortion.

5
 c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z’s field unless Z will sign and deliver to B
a bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces
Z to sign and deliver the bond. A has committed extortion.
d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal
to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the
paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion.

INGREDIENTS OF EXTORTION

The following are the ingredients of section 383 Of IPC-

1. Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or to another.

2. Dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or
valuable security.

PUTS ANY PERSON IN FEAR OF INJURY

For an offence under this section the extortioner must put another person under fear of injury
and thereby dishonestly induce that person to deliver property. - One of the necessary
ingredients of the offence of extortion is that the victim must be induced to deliver to any
person any property or valuable security etc. under the of fear injury. The fear must be of
such nature and extent as to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates, and takes
away from his acts the element of free voluntary action which alone constitutes consent.1

Here the wide interpretation of injury must be kept in mind in respect to section 44 which is
as follows –

1 (1863) 9 Cox. 268.

6
Section 44 (Injury) – The word ‘injury’ denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any
person, in body, mind, reputation or property.

The above section therefore ascribes to the description and nature of injury being against
property, injury whether physical or mental or against the goodwill of a person which may
cause distress.

Whether a person has in fact been put in any injury is a matter which courts must decide.
Since the fear of injury is an essential ingredient to constitute the offence of extortion, it is
necessary to imply that the nature and extent of such injury under similar circumstances
keeping in consideration the facts of the case would be found in an ordinary reasonable
prudent man.

Therefore, the Courts have remarked that, though fear is not necessarily confined to an
apprehension of bodily injury, it must be in reason as, in reason and common experience, is
likely to induce a person to part with his property against his will, and to put him as it were
under a temporary suspension of the power of exercising it through influence of the terror
impressed; in which case, fear implies as well in sound reason in legal construction, the place
of force, or an actual taking by violence or assault upon the person.2

Illustration – A threatens to publish defamatory libel concerning Z, unless Z gives him

money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.

Threat of Criminal Accusation – The threat under this section had nothing to do with the
truth of the accusation, whether true or false would also amount to the fear of injury. Herein
the guilt or the innocence of the party threatened would be immaterial. A threat to charge may
not be before a judicial tribunal, it would be enough if the is to charge before a third person.

In the case of Miard3, where the accused threatened to expose a clergymen, who had criminal
intercourse with a women in a house of ill fame, to various person, it was held to be threat
falling under this section because it was of such a nature as men of ordinary firmness could
not be expected to resist.

2 Re Donolley’s Case. 3
Miard, (1844) 1 Cox. 22
4 Redman, 10 Cox. 159.

7
The threat under this section had nothing to do with the truth of the accusation,4 whether true
or false would also amount to the fear of injury. Herein the guilt or the innocence of the party
threatened would be immaterial. A threat to charge may not be before a judicial tribunal, it
would be enough if the is to charge before a third person.3

In the case of Robertson6, where P, the prosecutor while returning home met a woman on the
way to whom he spoke, whereupon he was accosted by a policeman on duty who threatened
to prosecute him for having spoken to a prostitute on the street for which P made himself
liable to pay a fine of 1 pound. The constable, however, proposed to drop the matter if he was
paid hush money of 5 Sh. Which P paid him. The constable was held liable for this offence.

But a refusal by A to perform a marriage ceremony and enter the marriage in the register
unless he was paid Rs. 5 does not amount to extortion.4

Similarly, a refusal to allow people to carry firewood collected in a government forest

without payment of proper fees, a payment taken from the owner of trespassing cattle under
the influence of a threat that the cattle would be impounded if the payment were refused, and
the obtaining of a bond under the threat of non- rendering of service as vakil were held not to
constitute an offence under this section.

DISHONESTLY INDUCES THE PERSON SO PUT IN FEAR TO

DELIVER TO ANY PERSON ANY PROPERTY

The essence of this offence is dishonest inducement and obtaining delivery of property in
consequence of such inducement. Therefore, an intention to cause wrongful loss or gain in
essential; merely causing a wrongful loss would not be sufficient.

3 Robinson, (1837) 2 M. & R. 14.

6 Robertson, 10 Cox. 9.
4 Nizamuddin, (1923) 4 Lah. 179.

8
For an offence under this section actual delivery of property by the person put in fear of
injury is essential.5 Where a person through fear offers no resistance to the carrying off his
property, but does not deliver any of the property to those who carry it away, the offence
committed is not extortion but robbery.6 The offence of extortion is not complete until
delivery of property by the person put in fear. Then again immovable objects may also
become the subject matter of extortion in as much as the offence of extortion consists in
inducing a person put in fear to deliver to deliver valuable security or anything signed or
sealed which can be converted into valuable security.

Illustration - A, by putting Z in fear of injury, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal
to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A. Here as the paper so
signed maybe converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion.

Where the accused honestly believed, complainant had taken money belonging to him (the
accused), an attempt to take back that amount cannot be said to be with the intention of
causing wrongful loss to the victim.7

To Any Person – It is not necessary that a threat should be used and property received, by
one and same person. The threat may be used by one person and the property must be
delivered in consequence of such a threat, i.e., the delivery of property to the person who puts
in fear of injury to any person at the instance of the former and in consequence of the threat
used. All those persons who use threat and to whom property is delivered will be liable for
the offence of extortion.8

Section 30 of IPC : The words “valuable security” denote a document which is, or purports
to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted,
extinguished or released, or where by any person acknowledges that he lies under legal
liability, or has not a certain legal right.

5 Labh Shanker, A.I.R. 1995 Sau. 42.

6 Duleelooddeen Sheikh (1866) 5 W.R. (Cr.) 19.
7 (1866) 2 BHC 394.
8 (1866) 2 B.H.C. 394.

9
Valuable security- The thing delivered under this section may be any property or valuable
security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security.
Valuable security defined in section 30 of the code. The latter expression, i.e. anything signed
or sealed denotes that even incomplete deeds may be the subject of extortion. If a minor boy
is beaten and forced to execute a pronote, the person using such force would be liable under
this section, but forcible taking of thumb impression on a piece of paper which can be
converted into a valuable security does not amount to extortion but to an offence under
section 352 of the code. But incomplete deeds may be the subject of extortion. For instance,
A signs his name to a promissory note in which date and amount etc. are not filled up and
delivers it to B, the offence of extortion is committed because promissory note can be
completed and used as valuable security.9

In a case of Romesh Chandra Arora where the accused took a photograph of a naked boy
and a girl by compelling them to put off their clothes and extorted money by threatening them
to publish the photograph, he was guilty of extortion.10

Where P, a police officer arrested B and refused to accept bail until rupees 500 was paid and
released him only when the amount demanded was paid, P was guilty of extortion.14

Where A obtains property from B by saying, “your child is in the hands of my gang and will
be killed unless you send us five thousand rupees”, A would be guilty under this section.

A finds B’s brief case and writes to him that he will give it on payment of Rs. 500/-. If B pays
Rs.500 then A will be liable for extortion and also for criminal misappropriation if he does
not return the brief case.

In R.S.Nayak v. A.R.Antulay,15 it was held that for an offence of extortion, fear or threat
must be used. Before a person can be said to put any person to fear of any injury to that
person it must appear that he had held out some threat to do or omit to do what he is legally
bound to 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.

9 M. & M. 346.
10 I.L.R. (1969) 19 Raj. 141; See also Romesh Chandra Arora v state, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 154.

10
In this case chief minister A.R.Antulay, asked the sugar co-operatives, whose cases were
pending before the government for consideration, to make donations and promised to look
into their cases. It was held by Supreme Court that these facts do not constitute the offence of
extortion. There was no evidence at all that the managements of sugar co-operatives has been
put in any fear and the contributions had been paid in response to threats.

Section 384 – Punishment for extortion: Whoever commits extortion shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to three years, or with
fine or with both.

14.A.I.R. 1942 Oudh 163.

15.1986 Cri. L.J. 1922 (S.C).
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEFT AND EXTORTION

1. In theft the offender takes property without the consent of the owner, extortion is
committed by wrongfully obtaining of consent.
2. Only movable property may be the subject-matter of theft; the property obtained by
extortion is not limited only to movable one, even immovable property may be the
subject- matter.
3. In theft the property is taken by the offender; in extortion the property is delivered to
the extortion.
4. In theft no force or threat is used or fear is caused in taking the property; in extortion
the property is obtained by intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to that
person or any other and thereby dishonestly inducing him to part with his property.

11
12
WHEN EXTORTION IS ROBBERY

Extortion is robbery if the following conditions are fulfilled:

1. When a person commits extortion by putting another person in fear of instant death,
or instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person;
and
2. Such a person by so putting another in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and
there to deliver up the thing extorted; and
3. The offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person
put in fear.

In the presence of the person- For extortion to become robbery it is necessary that the
offender must be present before the person put in fear of injury. That a person is said to be
present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, or instant hurt,
or of instant wrongful restraint. The offence of extortion becomes robbery if the offender by
reason of his presence is capable enough to carry his threat into effect instantaneously. That
is, the victim delivers his property in order to avoid imminent danger of injury to himself or
to some other person. When injury threatened relates to some other person, such other person
would naturally be one in whom the person robbed is interested and, therefore, in order to
avoid injury to that other person he delivers the things demanded.

Illustration- A takes out a knife and points at B and says to C that he will kill his son B if she
refuses to part with her golden chain. C delivers that chain to A. A is guilty of the offence of
robbery because he extorts money by putting B in immediate danger of life.

CONCLUSION

On consideration of the above definition and ingredients what appears is that if someone puts
the other intentionally in fear of any injury and thereby dishonestly induces that person who
had been put into fear, to deliver to the person any property or valuable security liable to be

13
punished for extortion. The words “induces the person so put in fear to deliver” indicates the
voluntariness of act of delivering a particular property on account of being put into fear etc.

Thus what is necessary for constituting an offence of extortion is that the prosecution must
prove that on account of being put into fear of injury the victim was voluntarily delivering
any particular property to the man putting him into fear. If there was no delivery of any
property, then the most important ingredient constituting an offence of extortion was not
available.

14
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

• PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law, by K I Vibhute, LexisNexis, 12th Edition 2014.

• Textbook Of Criminal Law, by Glanville Williams, 2nd Edition, 2009, Universal Law
• Clarkson and Cleating Criminal Law, by CMV Clarkson, HM Keating and SR
• Textbook on Criminal Law, Michael T. Molan, 3rd edition 2001, Old Bailey Press.

Internet Sources:

• http://www.hrdiap.gov.in/fcg2/studymaterial/week2/INDIAN PENAL CODE,

1860.pdf
• https://www.nls.ac.in/students/SBR/issues/vol10/1002.pdf

15