Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Extortion and Punishment For It (Ss. 383 and 384 IPC)

Section 383: Extortion

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 money 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.

Section 384: 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.

Classification of Offence:

The offence under this Section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compundable and triable by any magistarte.

Essential Ingredients of Extortion:

1. Putting a person in fear.
2. The fear caused to a person must be a fear of injury either to himself or to some other person in whom the person put in fear is interested.
3. The fear must be intentionally caused.
4. As a consequence of the fear so exercised the person put in fear is induced by the offender to deliver any property or any valuable security or anything signed or sealed to any person which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.
5. The offender must act dishonestly in doing so, i.e., he must act with the intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss.
6. There must be the delivery of property under fear

Explanation:

According to Section 30 of IPC, The words “valuable security” denote a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extin­guished or released, or whereby any person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.

Illustration: A writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange. As the effect of this endorsement is to transfer the right to the bill to any person who may become the lawful holder of it, the endorse­ment is “valuable security”.

The use of the words ‘anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security’ in the definition of extortion shows that incomplete deeds may also be subject of extortion. For instance, A signs his name to a promissory note in which date and amount, etc. are not filled up and delivers it to B, the offence of extortion is committed because promissory note can be completed and used as valuable security.

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.

In Labhshanker v. State, AIR 1953 Sau. 42 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 Hyderabad State v. Berappa AIR 1951 Hyd 91 case, The Court held that the property may include both movable or immovable property. So far extortion is concerned, it may be committed in respect of immovable property also.

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 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 Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1988) 3 Crimes 80 (Raj) case the accused police constable threatening to take the complainant to the police station if he does not pay. The Court held that it is extortion.

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 R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay, AIR 1986 SC 2045 case, the court opined that 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 a thing which he is not legally bound to do and says that if money is not paid to him, he would not do that thing, such act would not amount to an offence of extortion.

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.

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.

What Prosecution Should Prove?

1. The accused put the victim in fear of some injury as defined in Section 44 of IPC;
2. such injury was either to the victim or another person in which the victim has the interest;
3. The accused put the victim in such fear intentionally;
4. Under such fear, the accused induced the victim to deliver a movable or immovable property or valuable security or something which can be converted into valuable security when signed or sealed
5. Accused done it with the intention to obtain any wrongful gain for himself or to make any wrongful loss to another.

Punishment:

Section 384 says 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.

Note that the phrase “may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”. It means the accused if convicted can be set free by paying only fine and if imprisonment (simple) is ordered then it can be less than 3 years also. Maximum of three years simple imprisonment can be awarded.

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

For More Articles on Indian Penal Code Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here