GANESHMAL SAIT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the findings of the learned Sessions Judge it seems to me that no offence under Section 384, Penal Code, has been committed. The learned Sessions Judge in paragraph (3) of his judgment gives the following finding "accused 1 and the other members were apparently convinced that P. W. 1 had received the bag containing the money from accused 3 and had misappropriated it for his own purposes. They would not therefore listen to the denial made by P. W. 1. " Accepting this finding, the question is whether the offence of extortion as defined in Section 383, Penal Code, can be said to have been made out. The chief element in the offence of extortion is "intentionally putting a person in fear of any injury to that peraon, or to any other", and thereby dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security etc. So the inducement must be dishonest. If accused 1 dishonestly induced P. W. 1 by putting him in fear of injury to himself or to any other to deliver property, his act would amount to extortion. In Section 24 "dishonestly" haa been defined as: 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'. In this case, it cannot be said that by asking for the money which accused l had lost he was trying to have any wrongful gain. So, the only other portion of the section applicable is "causing wrongful loss. " If accused l 's intention was to cause wrongful loss to P. w. 1, he would be guilty. It is not only sufficient that there should be wrongful loss caused to one individual, but the person putting that individual in fear of injury must have the intention that wrongful loss should be caused. If accused 1 hon estly believed, as the learned Sessions Judge finds, that P. W. l had taken the money belonging to him (A-l) the attempt to get it back could not be said to be with the intention of causing wrongful loss to p. w. 1. Loss might have been caused to p. W. 1, but it was not wrongful loss according to accused l. Such wrongful loss should be caused as a result of an intention. On the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, there is a thorough absence of intention on the part of accused 1 to cause wrongful Iobs and that being so, the offence under Section 384, Penal Code, has not been made out. If accused 1 is not guilty of the offence, accused 3 to 7 who were only present to assist accused 1 with a view to intimidate P. w. 1, according to the learned Sessions Judge, cannot be guilty at all.

(2.) THE revision is allowed, and the petitioners are acquitted. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.