Skip to main content

Extortion – Section 383-387 of IPC

 Extortion – Section 383-387 of IPC

Section 383 of IPC speaks about extortion , it means putting a person into a situation where the other person may get bodily harmed or injured if they dont provide with the valuable or any property that has good value and can be converted into money in lieu of their safety  ,.
It is a situation where valuable property are unlawfully taken over by the owner of their property by keeping him/her in a situation of fear of his body or anything he/she fancy .
A bully in school asks for lunch box from other kids else they would be beaten up by the bully .
Here, bully would be guilty of extortion.
Ingredient required to call it an offence of extortion
- Intentionally putting a person in fear
-To dishonestly induce such a person so put in fear
-scare the person so that they deliver to any person any property , valuable , or anything signed
-anything which has market value and can be converted in terms of money


In case of ,Romesh Chandra Arora v. The State
The accused in this case compelled the respondents to open their clothes and took their photos.
Then threatened them to give money in lieu of that photos .

In case of Chandra kala v. Ram Kishan
The head master of the school (Respondent) threatened a teacher of the same school to sign 3 blank papers else he would attack on her modesty , which was held as extortion .

Section 384 speaks about punishment for extortion
It is cognizable , non bailable , non-compoundable offence . Any magistrate can conduct the trial .

Section 385 speaks about putting person in fear in order to commit extortion 
It says that if a person is caught in action while implementing his action of extortion .
The person is yet to commit extortion, so, the punishment is less than other sections.
Under this section ,the offender would be punished for imprisonment up to 2 years or fine or both.
It is a cognizable , non bailable , non compoundable offence and any magistrate can conduct the trial.

Section 386 speaks about extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt
It means if a person commits extortion by increasing the frequency of threat and directly aims to put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt in lieu of valuables or something of offenders interest .
The offender would be punished for imprisonment up to ten years , and shall also be liable to fine.
For example – Mr.Kohli puts a peddler on gun point and ask for all the gold she is wearing . This act would amount to extortion .
They are cognizable , non-bailable , non-compoundable offences and any magistrate of 1st class can conduct the trial.

Section 387 speaks about putting person in fear of death or grievous injury in order to commit theft
Under this section the offender is yet to commit the offence of extortion ,so, the punishment decreases with that to extortion committed .
The accused would be punished for imprisonment upto 7 year and shall also be liable to fine.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more