LAWS(PVC)-1924-11-120

DORASWAMY AYYAR Vs. KING-EMPEROK

Decided On November 18, 1924
DORASWAMY AYYAR Appellant
V/S
KING-EMPEROK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case accused was convicted by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Mannargudi under Secs.420 and 507, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. On appeal the Sessions Judge of West Tanjore came to the same findings of fact but altered the conviction to one under Secs.385 and 508, Indian Penal Code, holding that Secs.420 and 507 were not the proper sections applicable on the facts; he also reduced the sentence to 21 months rigorous imprisonment. In revision it is argued that on the facts found no offence has been committed by the accused under Secs.385 and 503 as all the necessary ingredients of those offences are not made out; and that in any event the Sessions Judge was wrong in convicting the accused under these sections as he had not been charged under them and that the proper order if any would have been one for a re-trial.

(2.) The facts found are that the accused sent two anonymous letters Exhibits A and B by post to one Abdul Jaffer, a well-to-do Muharnmadau of Koothanallur, son of one Natharkanni Rowther, recently deceased, purporting to come from the deity at Nagore (Nagore Andavar) directing him to pay certain sums of money to a person specified in the letters whom he was to seek out and threatening him with ruin and death from divine displeasure if he failed to do so. As reference was made to the recent death of his father, Nathar Kanni, as having resulted from disobeying such warnings, Abdul Jaffar was frightened and he and his brother-in-law, Prosecution Witness 2, went to the place named with Rs. 300 and there met accused. On that occasion for some reason or other accused denied that he was the person they were in search of and ridiculed their taking the anonymous letters seriously. Seeing that Abdul Jaffar went away and did nothing more thereafter, the accused went to Koothanallur and pretended that he had two letters Exhibits C and I) from the God at Nagore wherein he was commanded to go to Jaffar and explain the serious situation to him and to receive Rs. 300 from him. He also showed them the identification mark mentioned in Exhibit B, a big mole on his left arm, to convince Jaffar that he was the man referred to Jaffar was anxious to pay but his brother-in-law, Prosecution Witness 2, dissuaded him from doing so that day ; and the accused was not paid then and he went away. Very shortly after, Jaffar received another letter Exhibit E, found by the lower Courts to have been sent by the accused, saying that that was the last communication that he would receive and that dire consequences would follow without further Warning. It was signed "Andavan" and purported to come from God himself. On receiving this letter Jaffar got alarmed and sent for the accused; in the meanwhile his brother-in-law had informed the police) of what had happened. Accused came to Jaffar's house and discussed the matter with him and two others and agreed to receive three currency notes of Rs. 100 each if offered on a silver plate with sugar and fruits. On the offer being so made accused took the notes and put the bundle under his arm- pit and was leaving the house when he was arrested by the police. Jaffar seems to have been satisfied with the transaction as he thought he had thereby averted the threatened danger to him and his family.

(3.) It is on the above facts that we have to decide what offence the accused had committed. One of the sections under which the accused was convicted by the first Court is Section 507, Indian Penal Code. It is a kind of criminal intimidation. The offence of criminal intimidation is denned in Section 503, Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge was of opinion that the injury mentioned in it must be an injury to be inflicted by some act of the offender and that as here the threat was in the nature of an intimation of divine displeasure the offence did not fall under criminal intimidation. It seems to me the view that Section 507 does not apply here is correct. The threat made in this case may be shortly stated to be this: if you don t pay me the money demanded from you, God is going to punish you and your family with ruin and death.