- (1.) The appcts. are public servants and stand convicted and sentenced under S. 384, I.P.C. The findings arrived at by the two Cts. below are that they held out a threat under colour of office to the complainant and made him pay them a certain sum of money in case he did not want them to report the matter to the authority concerned if he happened to entertain more than 25 guests in the marriage feast of his niece. The contention of the counsel for the appcts. before the Ct. is that even if it be assumed just for arguments' sake that the findings arrived at by the two Cts. below are correct, no offence of extortion is made oat against the appcts. He has in support of his contention relied on the ruling in Venkatappa V/s. Jalayya, 1919 AIR(Mad) 94
(2.) Section 383, I. P. C., lays down that 'whoever...pats any person in fear of any injury... .........and thereby........induces (the person so put in fear to deliver...any property...commits extortion." Section 44, I.P.C. lays down that 'the word "injury" denotes any harm whatever illegally cause to any person, in....property.' Section 43, I.P.C. lays down that "the word 'illegal' is applicable to every thing which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action...."
(3.) Venkatappa V/s. Jalayya, 1919 AIR(Mad) 94 lays down as below : "Accused, who was the proprietor of a certain estate, stopped complainant, a cooly, whom he suspected of smuggling Arrack from the Nizam's Dominions into British Territory, on the way . . . threatened to report the matter to the police unless he paid something. He was charged with . . . threat of injury to commit extortion ... and was sentenced to a ... fine...: Held, . . . that the conviction under S. 385 was bad, as complainant was not put in fear of any injury within the meaning of S. 44, Penal Code and the accused only threatened to do what he was bound by law to do . . ." 3a. The finding arrived at by the two Cts. below do go to show that the appcts. had not put the complainant in fear of any injury i.e., 'illegal' harm. They had according to the very findings arrived at by the two Cts. below just 'held out a threat that in case the complainant happened to entertain more than 25 guests in the marriage-feast of his niece they would report the matter to the authority concerned unless he paid them a certain sum of money. The threat so given thus was no 'injury' within the meaning of S. 44 read with S. 43, I.P.C.;