Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Adobe Scan 14-Mar-2023
Adobe Scan 14-Mar-2023
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
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
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
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
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
Section 383
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
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".
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
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 -
(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
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
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,
- -
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
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
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.
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
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
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,