KATTUVA ROWTHER Vs. SUPPAN ASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek to revise the judgment and sentence of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Shermadevi in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1925 confirming the sentence of the Sub- Magistrate of Ambasamudram in C.C. No. 337 of 1925 on the ground that the Court of trial had no jurisdiction.

(2.) It was found that the 2nd appellant seized one Suppan Asari (P. W. 1) and tied him to a pillar. The 1 appellant would only release him if he paid Rs. 100. On payment of Rs. 75 Suppan Asari was released. This is a clear case of robbery and the petitioners moved both the Sub-Divisional and District Magistrates to transfer it from the file of the Sub-Magistrate who had no jurisdiction.

(3.) The Public Prosecutor has not defended the District Magistrate's interpretation of Section 390, Indian Penal Code. Suppan Asari was in fear of instant wrongful restraint at the moment when he delivered the property in the presence of the accused. There may have been previous wrongful restraint with no extortion, but it is not necessary that the extortionshould follow immediately upon the restraint in order to constitute robbery, provided that there is fear of restraint at the time. In illustration (d) to Section 390, Indian Penal Code, the father is in instant fear of his child's death, though the child may have been in the hands of the gang for some time. Nor in the present case can it be said as the District Magistrate says, that the threat was not of immediate violence even, but of a, concocted case. In the words of the complaint, the accused said, "We shall release him only on paying the amount."