Law and You > Criminal Laws > Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 > Chapter XVII > Extortion and Punishment For it (S. 308(1) and 308(2) BNS)
Extortion is a serious criminal offense that strikes at the heart of personal security and freedom. Under criminal law, particularly the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), extortion is defined as the unlawful obtaining of property or valuable security from a person through coercion, threats, or intimidation. Unlike theft, extortion involves the victim’s consent, albeit one that is forced and not free. Section 383 of the IPC lays the groundwork for understanding extortion, while subsequent sections outline its various forms and punishments. As technology evolves and new methods of intimidation emerge, extortion continues to pose a growing challenge for law enforcement and the legal system alike. This article explores the legal definition, essential elements, aggravated forms, and judicial interpretation of extortion under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Comparative Study BNS and IPC
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Change |
| S. 308(1) | S. 383 | Clause (e) is newly added in the illustrations. |
| S. 308(2) | S. 384 | IPC section is included as a sub-section in BNS sans heading. The upper limit of the imprisonment is increased from three years to seven years. |
| S. 308(3) | S. 385 | IPC section is included as a sub-section in BNS sans heading. No other change. |
| S. 308(4) | S. 387 | IPC section is included as a sub-section in BNS sans heading. No other change. |
| S. 308(5) | S. 386 | IPC section is included as a sub-section in BNS sans heading. No other change. |
| S. 308(6) | S. 388 | IPC section is included as a sub-section in BNS sans heading. Words “and, if the offence by punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with imprisonment for life” are removed as the section 377 IPC has been excluded altogether. |
| S. 308(7) | S. 389 | IPC section is included as a sub-section in BNS sans heading. Words “and, if the offence by punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with imprisonment for life” are removed as the section 377 IPC has been excluded altogether. |
Defining Extortion S. 308(1)
Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.
Illustrations:
(a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.
(b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to A a promissory note binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z signs and delivers the note. A has committed extortion.
(c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z’s field unless Z will sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and deliver the bond. A has committed extortion.
(d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion.
(e) A threatens Z by sending a message through an electronic device that “Your child is in my possession, and will be put to death unless you send me one lakh rupees.” A thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.
Ingredients of Extortion:
- The accused puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other;
- He does it intentionally and dishonestly; and
- He induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person
- any property, or
- valuable security or
- anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security; and
- There must be the delivery of property, valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security under fear
These ingredients of extortion , which may be considered as equivalent to ‘blackmail’ under English law. All the illustrations given in the Section show that for offence of extortion to complete there must be the delivery of property to the wrongdoer. Property can be movable or immovable.
Intentionally Putting in Fear of Injury:
For an offence under this section, the offender must intentionally put the person in fear of injury. Thus, the person must be threatened with injury. The fear of injury need not necessarily be personal violence. It may be of any harm illegally caused to body, mind, reputation or property. The nature of fear or ‘fear of injury’ must be of a real nature, so as to unsettle the mind of the person upon whom it is used. The fear must precede the delivery of property.
The wrongful retention of property obtained without fear of threat will not amount to extortion, even though subsequent threats are used to retain it.
The threat may be true or false. Before a person can be said to put any person in fear of any injury to that person, it must appear that he held out some threat to do or omit to do what he is legally bound to do in future.
To whom Accused is Threatening:
The other ingredient is that the fear of injury need not necessarily be to the victim at present on spot but to any other person. Under this requirement, it is not necessary that the person so put in fear must be threatened to injury to himself only. The fear of injury may be that person or to any other person or to another.
Punishment for Extortion (S. 308(2)):
Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Classification of Offence under S. 308(2):
The offence under this Section is cognizable, non-bailable, and triable by Magistrate of First Class.
Case Laws:
In R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay, AIR 1986 SC 2045 case, the Supreme Court held that for an offence of extortion, fear or threat of fear must be used. A person can be said to be put any person under fear of injury, it must appear that he has held out some threat to do or omit to do what he is legally bound to do in future. If all that a person does is to promise to do a thing which he is not legally bound to do and says that if the money is not paid to him he would not do that thing, such act would not amount to an offence of extortion.
In Ram Kamal Bezboruah v. Chandra Nath Kalita, 1971 CRILJ 708 case, where the accused persons put a lot of pressure on two members of the governing council of an educational institution to revoke the earlier order of suspension of the principal, it may have an undue pressure but it could not amount to extortion.
In Romesh Chandra Arora v. The State, AIR 1960 SC 154 case, where the accused took a photograph of a naked boy and girl by compelling them to put off their clothes and extorted money by threatening them to publish the photograph, he was held guilty of extortion.
In Labhshanker v. State, AIR 1953 Sau. 42/ 1955 CRILJ 839 case the Court held that to constitute the offence of extortion, it is not enough that the wrongdoer had done his part; it must produce the result also. If it fails to produce the requisite effect, the act would remain only in a stage of attempt.
In Tasim v. State 2014 CrLJ NOC 435 case, the Court observed that the essence of offence of extortion is in the actual delivery of possession of the property by the person put in fear and the offence is not complete before such delivery.
In Indrasana v. Siaram 1970 CrLJ 647 case, the Court held that forcibly taking any property will not come under the definition of extortion. For that, it should be shown that the person was induced to deliver the property by putting him in a fear of injury.
In Jadunandan Singh v. Emp., AIR 1941 Pat. 121 case, the Patna High Court observed that the use of the words ‘anything signed or sealed’ which may be converted into a valuable security shows that incomplete deeds may also be subject of extortion. But, mere forcible taking of a thumb impression on a piece of paper which can be converted into a valuable security does not amount to extortion but to an offence under section 352 of IPC (S. 131 BNS).
In Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar 2007 CrLJ 1440 (SC) case the court distinguishing the extortion from the theft by saying that extortion is carried out by overpowering the will of the owner while in theft offender’s intention is to take away the property without the consent of the owner.
In Ramchandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 381 case a boy was kidnapped and ransom were demanded from his father or else kidnaper threatened to kill the boy. The court held that the offenders are punishable for kidnapping and extortion under Section 387 of IPC.
In Walton (1863) 9 Cox 268 case the court opined that the ‘fear’ must be of such a nature and extent as to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates, and takes away from his acts, that element of free voluntary action which alone constitutes consent.
In Chander Kala v. Ram Kishan, AIR 1985 SCC 1268, case, the complainant (Smt. Chander Kala) was working as a teacher in a Govt. Middle School and the respondent (Ram Kishan) was the headmaster of the same school. The accused, after a series of events, called the complainant to his house and threatened to attack her modesty if she refused to sign three blank papers. And when she did, he threatened that he will use those signed papers to blackmail her by recording any statement on the papers, if she refused to act according to his wishes. The Supreme Court held that the accused had committed an offence under Section 384.
In State Of Karnataka vs Basavegowda Alias Chandra, 1997 CriLJ 4386,, case, the accused husband took his wife (the complainant) to the forest under the pretext of going for the wedding of a friend. He then threatened to kill her if she didn’t hand all of her ornaments to him. After she handed him all her ornaments, he assaulted her with a big stone and his fists and ran away when saw two men coming. Though he wasn’t held guilty for robbery, he was punished for the offence of extortion under section 384 IPC (S. 308(2) BNS).
The offence of extortion is intermediary between the offence of theft and robbery. Extortion becomes robbery if the offender at the time of committing the offence puts the person in fear and commits the extortion by causing fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint. However, in a robbery, the property can be removed by force without the person delivering the property.
Difference between Extortion and Theft
| Extortion | Theft |
| Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”. | Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking is said to commit theft. |
| In extortion, there is a delivery of property with consent induced by fear and therefore more akin to robbery than to theft. | In theft property is removed or taken away without the consent of the person in possession thereof, |
| Both movable and immovable property may be the subject of the offence. | Only movable and property may be the subject of the offence. |
| There is the element of force for the property is obtained by putting a person in fear of injury to that person or to any other. | There is no element of force. |
| There is the delivery of property by the possessor. | There is no delivery of property by the possessor |
Conclusion:
Extortion, as defined and penalized under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 reflects a critical balance between protecting individuals from coercive threats and maintaining public order. By criminalizing the act of obtaining property through fear and intimidation, the law draws a clear boundary against the misuse of power and manipulation. The distinction between extortion and related offenses like theft and robbery highlights the nuanced approach taken by the legal system. As society and technology evolve, so too must our understanding and enforcement of extortion laws to ensure they remain effective in addressing both traditional and emerging threats. A robust legal framework, combined with awareness and judicial clarity, is essential in combating this deeply intrusive crime.
For More Articles on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Click Here