Legal provisions regarding Punishment for extortion under section 384 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Punishment for extortion:
“Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”.
Image Source: 4.bp.blogspot.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The offence under Section 384 is cognizable but warrant should ordinarily issue in the first instance. It is non-bailable but not compoundable, and is triable by any Magistrate.
In State v. Basavegowada [1997 CrLJ 4386 (Kant)], the accused husband took his wife to a forest and obtained her ornaments under threat to kill her. The ornaments were subsequently recovered from him. He was held guilty of the offence of extortion, not robbery.
In Chander Kala v. Ram Kishan [AIR 1985 SCC 1268], the headmaster of a school called a lady teacher to a place where he was alone and induced her to sign three blank papers by threatening an attack on her modesty, the Supreme Court held that it amounted to an offence under Section 384.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay and another [1986 CrLJ 1922 (SC)], Chief Minister A.R. Antulay asked the Sugar Cooperatives, whose cases were pending before the government for consideration, to make donations and promised to look into their cases. It was held by the Supreme Court that these facts do not constitute the offence of extortion as there was no evidence at all that the managements of the sugar cooperatives had been put in any fear and the contributions had been paid in response to threats.
In Ramesh Chandra Arora v. State [AIR 1954 SC 700], the accused had written letters to a person, enclosing photograph of his daughter in the nude and were of a character, which if made public, would undoubtedly compromise the reputation of the girl as well as her father. The accused demanded ‘hush money’ from him and threatened him stating that he would circulate the photographs to the relatives of the girl, if the money was not paid. He was convicted as he was guilty of extortion.
In Jadunandan Singh and another v. Emperor [AIR 1941 Pat 129], Narain Dusadh and Shenandan Singh, were returning after the inspection of some fields when the two petitioners and others assaulted them. The petitioner gave a blow to Narain on his right leg, and then other people assaulted Sheonandan. Jadunanda, after this, forcibly took the thumb impression of Narain on one piece of blank paper, and of Sheonandan on three blank papers. On these findings, the two petitioners and two others were convicted for extortion under Section 384 of IPC.