W W CHITALEY Vs. SRIS CH NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Re -visional application, is directed against an order dated 23.08.1979 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah issuing summons under Ss. 427 and 384 read with Sec. 511 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners who are officers of All India Reporter Limited, Congress Nagar, Nagpur in v Complaint Case No. 680 of 1979. The opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioners before the learned Magistrate alleging, inter alia, as follows : - -

(2.) The complainant is a shareholder of the All India Reporter Limited (hereinafter called the Company) since 1955 and is entitled to free supply of A.I.R. Journal month by month free of cost and carriage, in lieu of dividends and other benefits and has received the same accordingly from 1955 onwards till' February, 1978. In this process he has receiver all the monthly parts of A.I.R Journal tor the entire year 1978, The Index for each year is sent to those who have received all the parts of a particular year free of cost. This is a vital and valuable appendix to the set of a year and is indispensable as the set cannot be bound, and conveniently handled without it. But the petitioners are intentionally refusing to supply the index for 1978 free of cost to the complainant and they are not entitled to bring about such a change in the situation of the A.I.R. set for 1978 already supplied to the complainant which diminishes its valve or utility and affects it injuriously. Since the value of the set is more than Rs. 50| - the petitioners have committed an offence under Sec. 427. IPC. The accused wrote to the company for supply of the aforesaid index but in reply the company informed the complainant that his claim for supply of 1978 index would be satisfied, only on payment of Rs. 228| -. This arbitrary and whimsical demand for Rs. 228| - amounts to an attempt at extortion punishable under Sec. 384 read with Sec. 511 IPC. The complainant has refused to pay anything in his letter dated 13.8.79 to the company.

(3.) The learned Magistrate after taking cognizance of the alleged offences examined the complainant and his witness and passed the impugned order issuing process against the petitioners,