Extortion as a Crime

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................................................................................- 1 ENGLISH CASES.....................................................................................................................................................- 1 INDIAN CASES........................................................................................................................................................- 1 STATUTES...............................................................................................................................................................- 1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................................- 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................................- 4 AIMS & OBJECTIVES..............................................................................................................................................- 4 SCOPE & LIMITATIONS...........................................................................................................................................- 4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS..........................................................................................................................................- 4 STYLE OF WRITING................................................................................................................................................- 4 MODE OF CITATION................................................................................................................................................- 4 SOURCES OF DATA.................................................................................................................................................- 5 CHAPTERISATION...................................................................................................................................................- 5 CHAPTER 1: ENGLISH LAW- BLACKMAIL...............................................................................................................- 6 DEMAND................................................................................................................................................................- 7 MENACES...............................................................................................................................................................- 8 UNWARRANTED DEMAND.......................................................................................................................................- 9 A VIEW TO GAIN OR INTENT TO CAUSE LOSS.....................................................................................................- 10 CHAPTER 2: THE INDIAN PENAL CODE- EXTORTION...........................................................................................- 11 FEAR....................................................................................................................................................................- 12 INJURY..................................................................................................................................................................- 12 DISHONESTLY INDUCE.........................................................................................................................................- 14 DELIVERY OF PROPERTY & VALUABLE SECURITY..............................................................................................- 14 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................................- 16 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................................................- 18 BOOKS..................................................................................................................................................................- 18 INTERNET SOURCES.............................................................................................................................................- 18 -

Extortion as a Crime
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDEX

OF

AUTHORITIES

ENGLISH CASES

R v. Collister and Warhurst, (1955) 39 Cr App R 100.

R v. Harry, [1974] Crim LR 32.

R v. Harvey, (1980) 72 Cr App R 139.

R. v. Carruthers, (1844) 1 Cox 138.

R. v. Clear, [1968] 1 All E.R 74.

R. v. Denver, [1926] 2 K.B. 258.

R. v. Lawrence and Pomroy, (1971) 57 Cr App Rep 64.

R. v. Menage, (1862) 3 F. & F. 310

Thorne v. Motor Trade Association, [1937] 3 All E.R 157.

INDIAN CASES

Chandra Kala v. Ram Kishan, (1985) 4 SCC 212.

Hyderabad State v. Beerappa & Ors., AIR 1951 Hyd 91 (FB).

Jadunandan Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1941 Pat 129.

Lal Chand v. Emperor, AIR 1942 Lah 253.

R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, AIR 1986 SC 2045.

Ram Kamal Bezboruah v. Chandra Nath Kalita, 1971 Cri LJ 708 (Assam).

Ramesh Chandra Arora v. State, (1960) 1 SCR 924.

Tanumal Udha Singh, AIR 1944 Sin 203.

STATUTES

The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Larceny Act, 1916.

The Theft Act, 1968.

Extortion as a Crime
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION
Extortion, in simple language, can be said to be the criminal offense which occurs when a person
obtains money, behaviour, or other goods and/or services from another by wrongfully threatening or
inflicting harm to his person, reputation, or property. In extortion, thus, the victim willingly turns the goods
over to avoid a threatened later violence or other harm. The Indian Penal Code makes it a criminal
offence to commit extortion. It comes under the chapter dealing with offences against property and S. 383
and 384 are the relevant sections regarding the constituent elements of the offence and the punishment
thereof. Aggravated forms of extortion are provided in the subsequent sections up to S. 389.
The English equivalent of extortion is blackmail and it is defined in the Theft Act of 1968. This
Acts predecessor was the Larceny Act of 1916 in which the offence was dealt with incoherently and
unsatisfactorily. The original meaning of the word is (black- unlawful and mail- rent) the tribute exacted
by Scottish robbers from landowners as the price of immunity from raids, i.e. protection money. The word
blackmail is used more generally for a threat to cause something bad to happen to the other, except when
certain demands are met. In essence, this is exactly what the offence is. What needs to be clarified,
however, is what exactly would constitute the demand and what exactly would the something bad have
to be in order for the courts to hold it to be blackmail. The question of whose perspective is to be taken
while determining the two abovementioned elements is also relevant.
In the US though, a distinction has been made between blackmail and extortion. Extortion is used
in the same sense as used in the IPC, but blackmail (the usage is akin to its usage in common parlance)
is considered to be only one kind of extortion -- specifically, extortion by threatening another's reputation
with the disclosure of incriminating statements (true or false) about him. Even if it is not criminal to
disclose the information, it constitutes extortion to demand money or other consideration not to disclose it.
This has led to a raging debate on what has come to be known as the paradox of blackmail. A person is
legally free to reveal embarrassing information about you. Generally speaking, hes also free to negotiate
payment to refrain from exercising a legal right. But if he combines the two--offering to remain silent for a
feehes guilty of a felony: blackmail. However interesting this may be, it is outside the purview of this
paper. Also, US law is only touched upon as this paper will essentially be a comparative study between
English and Indian law.
Thus, extortion is regarded as a crime in almost all legal systems, notwithstanding the technical
objection that the victims consent is present. It is with good reason too, the absence of such a provision
would lead to chaos which would make life for law-abiding citizens very difficult indeed. This is proved by
the fact that the criminalization of extortion has not deterred organized crime, the Italian and American

Extortion as a Crime
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mafias being the most well publicized examples. Don Vito Corleone, the protagonist of the famous book
the Godfather began his rise into wealth as a petty extortionist. Such crime groups demand money in
exchange of protection, as ransom and as a price not to release potentially harmful information. Thus, in
todays context, the recognition of extortion as a crime is essential.
The provision in English law regarding blackmail is broadly worded and the relevant portions are
capable of being interpreted in any way the courts want. Gain to the accused, loss to the victim,
unwarranted demand, menaces are some of the more important terms which have come up before the
courts for interpretation. Through a study of select cases, the researcher will attempt to discover the
present position of British law on the point. This will then be compared with Indian law regarding extortion.
As already mentioned, the basic offence is defined in S. 383 and the aggravated forms are given in
subsequent sections. As will be seen, the wording of the section is clearer and doesnt leave as much
scope for interpretation as its British counterpart. Due to spatial restraints, this paper will cover only the
ingredients of the basic offence and will not be dealing in detail with any aggravated form of the offence,
though most of them will be covered sufficiently in the cases discussed. A comparison will be made
between the English law relating to blackmail and Indian law relating to extortion. The merits and demerits
of way in which the crime has been treated in the two legal systems will be gone into, as the researcher
sees them, and a conclusion will be reached as to which is more practical and will result in the conviction
of guilty persons.

Extortion as a Crime
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
AIMS & OBJECTIVES
The aim of this paper is to bring out the differences in the way the offence of extortion is treated in
English and Indian criminal law. In doing this, it is the objective of the researcher to also arrive at a
conclusion as to which of these methods of treatment is the better one in terms of achieving the best
results.

SCOPE & LIMITATIONS

The scope of this paper is restricted to looking at English and Indian law relating to extortion. The
study of Indian law is restricted to that of the basic definition of extortion and its constituent elements.
Aggravated forms of the offence, due to spatial restraints, are discussed in the cases which are
mentioned. Apart from this, another limitation is that only select cases are explored, largely due to the
same reason. Ideally, such a comparative study should also have included American law on the point,
which, due to spatial restraints, can be only dealt with very superficially.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

What is the law relating to blackmail in England and how have English courts interpreted the
relevant sections of the Theft Act of 1968 to arrive at a conclusion as to what are the elements
required to constitute blackmail?

In India, what are the ingredients necessary for extortion to be committed according to S. 383 of
the Indian Penal Code?

Which of these provisions is better and why?

STYLE OF WRITING
The style of writing followed in the first two chapters is descriptive and analytical, and that in the
third chapter is comparative.

MODE OF CITATION
The mode of citation followed in this paper is uniform throughout. If at all there is any
inconsistency, it is to be attributed to lack of data regarding that particular source.

Extortion as a Crime
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES OF DATA
All sources of data used in the writing of this paper are secondary. These include books, articles
and internet sources.

CHAPTERISATION
CHAPTER 1 deals with British law regarding the offence of blackmail as given in S. 21 of the Theft Act of
1968. This chapter will mainly be a discussion on how the words demand in the section have been
interpreted by the British courts.
CHAPTER 2 will be a study of S. 383 of the Indian Penal Code. The relationship between extortion, theft
and robbery will be briefly looked at in order to better understand the constituent elements of the offence.
Aggravated forms of extortion, though not expressly discussed, will be touched upon when dealing with
the ingredients of extortion, especially the question of what constitutes injury.

Extortion as a Crime
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 1: ENGLISH LAW- BLACKMAIL

Blackmail was a new offence when the Theft Act came into force. It replaced a group of offences
which comprised about two sections in its predecessor, the Larceny Act of 1916. The law was greatly
simplified by its coming and it has been described as replacing an ill-assorted collection of legislative
bric-a-brac which the draftsman of the 1916 Act put together with scissors and tape. 1 A brief study of this
much criticized provision might help us in better understanding the nuances of its present form. The first
part deals with threatening letters sent to the victim. It is for the jury to decide whether or not it contains a
sufficient threat.2 Both the meaning of the letter and the intent with which it was sent have to be
determined by the jury by looking at the letter itself and the situation of the parties. 3 The menace need not
be a threat of injury to the person or property of the prosecutor, or a threat to accuse him of a crime. It is
enough if there be a threat to accuse of misconduct not amounting to an offence against the criminal law. 4
There has been some debate as to the nature of menaces relating to accusations, as mentioned earlier.
An accusation, in spite of being true, may come within the meaning of menaces. 5 Coming to the phrase
reasonable or probable cause, though earlier cases have held it to be no defence that the prisoner
honestly believes that he has a reasonable or probable cause for making the demand, the position has
1

S. 29 of the Larceny Act, 1916 reads: (1)Every person whoi) utters, knowing the contents thereof, any letter or writing demanding of any person with menaces, and without any
reasonable or probable cause, any property or valuable thing;
ii) utters, knowing the contents thereof, any letter or writing accusing or threatening to accuse any other person
(whether living or dead) of any crime to which this section applies, with intent to extort or gain thereby any property
or valuable thing from any person;
iii) with intent to extort or gain any property or valuable thing from any person accuses or threatens to accuse either
that person or any other person (whether living or dead) of any such crime;
shall be guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof liable to imprisonment for life.
(2) Every person who with intent to defraud or injure any other person(a) by any unlawful violence to or restraint of the person of another, or
(b) by accusing or threatening to accuse any person (whether living or dead) of any such crime or of any felony,
compels or induces any person to execute, make, accept, endorse, alter or destroy the whole or any part of any
valuable security, or to write, impress, or affix the name of any person, company, firm or co-partnership, or the seal
of any body corporate, company or society upon or to any paper or parchment in order that it may be afterwards
made or converted into or used or dealt with as a valuable security, shall be guilty of felony and on conviction
thereof liable to imprisonment for life.
(4) For the purposes of this Act, it is immaterial whether any menaces or threats be of violence, injury or accusation
to be caused or made by the offender or by any other person.
2

R. v. Carruthers (1844) 1 Cox 138 as cited in Russell on Crime Vol. 2 (12th edn., J.W.C. Turner ed., New Delhi:
Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2001) at 869.
3

R. v. Menage (1862) 3 F. & F. 310 as cited in Russell on Crime Vol. 2 (12th edn., J.W.C. Turner ed., New Delhi:
Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2001) at 869.
4

Russell on Crime Vol. 2 (12th edn., J.W.C. Turner ed., New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2001) at
870.
5

R. v. Denver [1926] 2 K.B. 258 as cited in Russell on Crime Vol. 2 (12th edn., J.W.C. Turner ed., New Delhi:
Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2001) at 870.

Extortion as a Crime
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------somewhat changed now, as we shall see. With regard to the nature of the threat and of its effect on the
victims mind also, there have been sufficient differences of opinion in the courts. Is it sufficient for the
prosecution to establish the intent of the accused to terrify or alarm the victim into yielding to his
demands, or should it also be established that the victim was in fact alarmed? Thus, summing up, it can
be said that the confusion which pervades a large part of criminal law as to whether a constituent element
of a crime is to viewed subjectively or objectively has found its way into this offence as well. To be fair to
the English courts, as will subsequently be discussed, this confusion has somewhat been alleviated and
the position has remained more or less static in recent years.
Moving on to the main subject matter of this chapter, S. 21(1) of the Theft Act, 1968 deals with
blackmail.6 As can be inferred from the wording of the section, the actus reus of the offence consists in a
demand with menaces. Thus, the two issues that need to be resolved here are the meanings of demand
and menaces.

DEMAND
The Theft Act is not as limited as its predecessor, in which the demand had to be for any property
or valuable thing, or for something capable of being stolen or for an appointment or office of profit or
trust.7 S. 21(2) itself gives us a clue as to the nature of the demand envisaged by the Act. 8 It is obvious
that technically this is a huge improvement over the Larceny Act. Firstly, just looking at the wording, we
gather that the ambit of the term has been enlarged from just something tangible to encompass almost
anything, by the use of the phrase act or omission demanded. Such an act or omission can be virtually
anything, from delivery of a valuable thing or property to refraining from doing an act potentially harmful to
the accused. It is only limited by the requirement of S. 21(1) that the demand should be made with a view
to gain or intent to cause loss. When the blackmailer demands money or any other property, both these
requirements are satisfied- he gains and the other loses. However, blackmail being an offence against
property, there are inherent limitations to the connotation the word demand has. It has to be something to
the economic detriment of the victim or gain of the accused. Where the demand is that the victim have
sexual intercourse with the accused, this section wont be attracted. It has also to be mentioned here that
since ultimately most acts can be attributed to wanting monetary rewards, theoretically the ambit of the
term is still quite large.

It provides: A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause
loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is
unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
7

J.C. Smith, The Law of Theft (5th edn., London: Butterworths, 1984) at 151.

It reads: The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces
relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

Extortion as a Crime
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Moving onto the question of what would amount to a demand even when the things demanded
are the abovementioned, in keeping with much else in law, it has been said that a demand may be
explicit or implicit. It will suffice if the demeanour of the accused and the circumstances of the case were
such that an ordinary reasonable man would understand that a demand was being made upon him. This
is indeed the right test to be applied as a demand may be couched as a request and may be obsequious
in tone. In Collister and Warhurst9, two policemen indicated that P would be prosecuted for an offence but
that they would hold back on filing their report until they met P the next day. At that meeting, they asked if
P had anything for them saying, Remember, sir, I am now making an appeal to your benevolence. P
handed over some money. Since the reasonable man would construe this as a demand especially since it
was accompanied by veiled menaces, the policemen were convicted of what is now known as blackmail.

MENACES
The Act does not define menaces or give any clue as to what it might mean. Therefore, any
meaning we attribute to it must necessarily be one that is gleaned from a reading of the relevant cases.
From the cases that we are about to study, the term seems to have been given a very wide meaning, and
not just limited to the natural meaning of the threats of violence. In Thorne v. Motor Trade Association10,
Lord Wright said: I think the word menace is to be liberally construed and not as limited to threats of
violence but as including threats of any action detrimental to or unpleasant to the person addressed. It
may also include a warning that in certain events such action is intended. Though the word menaces
seems to be used intentionally in the Act to denote something of a degree greater than threats and a
consequent restriction in its scope is possible, any such restriction, in the view of the researcher, is bound
to be slight considering the fact that the word has been recognised to be an ordinary English word a jury
could be expected to understand. 11 Unless it is an exceptional case where because of special knowledge
in special circumstances what would be a menace to an ordinary person is not a menace to the person to
whom it is addressed, or the converse is true, it has been held to be unnecessary to spell out to the jury
the meaning of the word. 12 This would by itself result in it having a wide connotation. However, there is

(1955) 39 Cr App R 100.

10

[1937] 3 All E.R 157.

11

R. v. Lawrence and Pomroy (1971) 57 Cr App Rep 64. In this case, Pomroy did roofing for Thorn at an agreed
price of 195. Thorn was dissatisfied with the work, and paid only 125, promising to pay the rest on satisfactory
completion of the work. Pomroy apparently then stated that unless Thorn paid within seven days he had better look
over his shoulder before stepping out of the door. After some days, Pomroy called on Thorn alongwith a big man
called Lawrence to collect the rest of the money. When Thorn refused to pay, he was called out of the house by
Lawrence so that they could settle the matter. They were held to be guilty.
12

J.C. Smith, The Law of Theft (5th edn., London: Butterworths, 1984) at 153.

Extortion as a Crime
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------one limitation which was spelt out in R. v. Clear13, which is that the threat must be of such a nature and
extent that the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced or made
apprehensive as to accede unwillingly to the demand. If the threats were sufficiently serious to affect an
ordinary person, it is irrelevant that they were not taken seriously by or did not affect the victim. However,
the converse is not always true; if the accused is aware that the victim is likely to be influenced by threats
which would have no effect on an ordinary person, then he is still guilty.14
One case which can be used to elucidate on the element of menace is R v. Harry15. In this case,
the accused was treasurer of a college rag committee and had sent letters to 115 shopkeepers asking
them to buy indemnity posters, the purchase of which would ensure that they would be protected from
any rag activity which could cause them inconvenience. The poster was to the effect that the premises on
which it was displayed was to be immune from all rag activities. Only six traders complained, and one of
them said that his objection was to the veiled threat contained in the words protect you from
inconvenience. Though the prosecution submitted that the letter contained the clearest threat and that
there was no need for direct evidence that anyone thought it was a threat, the Court applied the test in
Clear and came to the conclusion that the threat was not of such a nature and extent that the mind of an
ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced especially since of the 115 people to
whom the letter was sent, so few had reacted. Thus, the test of menace is clearly objective, and the
perspective to be taken is that of an ordinary person of normal stability and courage. 16
The mens rea of the offence of blackmail consists of three elements:
(a) the demand is unwarranted
(b) the accused intended to make a demand with menaces
(c) with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another.

UNWARRANTED DEMAND
This is the most important factor limiting the playing field of the term demand in the section as it
draws the line between justifiable demands with menaces (demand for repayment of money due with a
threat to take legal proceedings) and unjustifiable ones (same demand coupled with a threat to injure). S.
21(1) expressly makes it clear that the test to be applied here is an entirely subjective one. It depends
entirely on the accuseds beliefs: firstly, he has to believe that he has reasonable grounds for making the
demand and secondly, he should also believe that the means used were proper. However, we cannot
assume that the test is entirely subjective, though prima facie, it may seem so. If that were the case, then
13

[1968] 1 All E.R 74.

14

R. Heaton, Criminal Law (London: Blackstone Press Ltd., 1998) at 303.

15

[1974] Crim LR 32.

16

J.C. Smith et al., Criminal Law: Cases & Materials (2nd edn., London: Butterworths, 1980) at 560.

Extortion as a Crime
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------no one could ever be convicted- the accused could always claim that his conception of acceptable
behaviour varies from the general one. Though the onus of proof is normally on the Crown, when the
Crown has proved that there was an intent to make a demand with menaces as well as a view to gain or
cause loss to the other, the evidential burden usually turns to the accused to prove his beliefs that the
grounds were reasonable and that the means were proper. In R v. Harvey17, it was held that since the
accused must believe that the menaces are a proper way of reinforcing the demand, societys objective
standard as to what is and what is not proper is brought into play. Thus, if he thinks that the means are
proper but knows that people would generally regard them as improper, his demand is unwarranted. This
case also enunciated the principle that no act which was believed to be lawful could be believed to be
proper within the meaning of the subsection. This does not mean that whatever is lawful is proper. 18

A VIEW TO GAIN OR INTENT TO CAUSE LOSS

By S. 34(2) of the Theft Act, gain and loss are to be construed as extending only to any temporary
or permanent gain or loss in money or other property. As already noted, this would limit the scope of the
offence to the protection of economic interests. Without it, the scope would have extended to virtually
every act under the sun. However, what is to be noted here is that a direct demand for money or other
property is not necessary. It is enough that the accuseds purpose in demanding the act or omission is
gain or loss in terms of money or other property. Even taking this view, the reality is that this severely
restricts the scope of the offence. Suppose that the accused demands with menaces that the victim
should drop out of the election for the post of college president. Since this post does not carry any
monetary reward with it, there is no gain or loss. Thus, he cannot be said to be guilty of blackmail under
English law.
A possible snag could arise when the accused is only trying to recover what he is legally entitled
to. In this case, the question of whether hes guilty would depend on whether we take gain to mean
getting a profit, or simply acquiring irrespective of the profit. In the previously discussed case of Lawrence
and Pomroy the Court assumed that the accused had a view to gain though the money was legally owed.
This, it is submitted, is the right interpretation for the simple reason that otherwise, the creditor will be at
liberty to do almost anything to get his money back.

17

(1980) 72 Cr App R 139 as cited in R. Heaton, Criminal Law (London: Blackstone Press Ltd., 1998) at 305. In this
case, the accused paid a huge sum of money for a consignment of cannabis which turned out to be useless. Angered
by the swindle, he kidnapped the wife and child of the victim with a threat to rape, maim and kill them unless his
money was returned. The Court thought that no sane person could believe that these threats were proper means of
enforcing a demand.
18

R. Heaton, Criminal Law (London: Blackstone Press Ltd., 1998) at 305.

10

Extortion as a Crime
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 2: THE INDIAN PENAL CODE- EXTORTION

The section which deals with extortion in the IPC is S. 383. 19 This chapter will basically be a study
of this offence and its constituent elements as can be inferred from case law on the point. Aggravated
forms of the offence will be included in the cases discussed. The starting point of extortion is the
ingraining of fear and it ends with the delivery of property.20 As is obvious from the wording of the section,
the ingredients of extortion are21(a) The accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person.
(b) The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional.
(c) The accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property,
valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security.
(d) Such inducement must be done dishonestly.
Before we get into an in-depth study of the ingredients, a brief look at the relationship between
theft, extortion and robbery is in order. The offence of extortion is carried out by overpowering the will of
the owner. In theft, the offenders intention is always to take without the persons consent. Apart from this,
the property obtained by extortion is not limited as in theft to moveable property only, but also includes
valuable security. The words valuable security according to S. 30 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. Regarding robbery, it has been said that extortion takes an intermediate place
between theft and robbery and is more akin to robbery than to theft. 22 This is somewhat justified because
S. 390 itself says that extortion is robbery when the extortion is committed in the presence of the victim
and delivery of property is taken by putting that person in fear of instant injury (which is restricted here to
death, hurt or wrongful restraint). Since these are the three principal constituents of injury, the only
differences expressly mentioned between the two are that the offender has to be in the presence of the
victim and that the threat must be of instant injury.
The issues that must be resolved regarding the elements of extortion are these. What would be
the degree of fear of injury which would justify the victim giving up his property? What all does the term
injuries encompass? What does dishonestly induce mean? What should be the subject matter of the
19

S. 383 reads: 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.
20

K.D. Gaur, A textbook on the Indian Penal Code (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing, 2004) at 631.

21

Ratanlal & Dhirajlals Law of Crimes (C.K. Thakker ed., New Delhi: Bharat Law House, 2002) at 1953.

22

P.S.A. Pillais Criminal Law (V. Suresh et al eds., New Delhi: Butterworths, 2000) at 765.

11

Extortion as a Crime
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------delivery be? In other words, we can draw parallels between each of these and the explanations of the
terms menaces, unwarranted demand and demand discussed in the previous chapter.

FEAR
Indian law seems to have followed the objective standard set by English law in the matter of
degree of fear of injury. It has to be of a real nature as to unsettle the mind of a man of reasonably sound,
or ordinarily firm mind upon whom it is exercised in such a way that the act does not remain voluntary. 23
Thus the element of free and voluntary action, the integral part of consent should be taken away. 24
Though the courts have by and large followed this test, the Law Commissioners have inserted a
subjective element into it, by saying that the question for the Court will be whether the injury threatened
was likely to produce the effect intended, and whether under the circumstances the party was really put in
fear, believing the injury to be inevitable if he did not comply.25 The first part is thus, clearly objective while
the second part would turn on circumstances like the age, sex and position of the person threatened.

INJURY
From the illustrations26 in the IPC itself, we can gather some idea as to the nature of the injury
envisaged by the framers. The following surely come within the ambit of injury: publishing of a
defamatory libel, abducting and wrongfully confining some person in who the victim has an interest,
destroying property and grievous hurt. Looking at subsequent sections which deal with aggravated forms
of extortion, we can also infer that death and accusation of an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life would also count as injuries. However, the definition of injury is given in S. 44 of the
IPC and this is what is relevant for the purposes of this section. It may take any of the forms of harm to a
persons body, mind, reputation or property, caused illegally. Thus, so long as there is nothing illegal about
the act of the accused, it is not extortion. 27 The act should either be an offence or capable of being made

23

K.D. Gaur, A textbook on the Indian Penal Code (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing, 2004) at 631.

24

R.A. Nelsons Indian Penal Code Vol. 4 (S.K. Sarkaria ed., New Delhi: Lexis-Nexis Butterworths, 2003) at 3287.

25

First Report, sections 417, 306

26

(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 Zs child in wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to A a
promissory note binding Z to pay certain moneys to A. Z signs and delivers the note. A has committed extortion.
(c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up 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. Here, as the paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security, A has committed extortion.
27

R.A. Nelsons Indian Penal Code Vol. 4 (S.K. Sarkaria ed., New Delhi: Lexis-Nexis Butterworths, 2003) at 3829.

12

Extortion as a Crime
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------the basis of a civil action.28 Where the police arrested a person, wrongfully confined him and extorted
money from him under a threat that he would not be released unless the money was paid. It was held that
this was an injury as it was wrongful confinement. The threat of a criminal charge, whether true or false,
also amounts to inflicting injury because though to threaten the use of the process of law is lawful, such a
threat made to enforce payment of money not legally due is unlawful. 29
In Ramesh Chandra Arora v. State30, the appellant threatened the victim that he would circulate
and publish photographs of his daughter in the nude and demanded money. Both the HC and the SC held
him guilty of criminal intimidation under S. 506 even though technically harm to reputation would be the
injury involved here. In Chandra Kala v. Ram Kishan31, a school headmaster called the complainant, a
lady teacher in his school and asked her to sign three blank papers failing which her modesty would be
outraged. She did so. On another occasion, the accused actually tried to outrage her modesty. She
complained and it was held that the accused was guilty both of extortion, as there was a threat of injury as
well as a justified fear of it, and of criminal intimidation.
In the famous case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay32, the respondent was the Chief Minister of
Maharashtra and during this period, he formed seven trusts, one of which was the Indira Gandhi Pratibha
Prathisthan (IGPP). He demanded that unless the sugar co-operatives, who had made a charter of
demands before the Government, made contributions to the IGPP, their demands pending before the
government would not be acceded to. The entire official machinery, particularly of the sugar directorate,
was used to pressurize the sugar federation for extracting contributions. As a result of such extortion,
several sugar factories had to pay. In this case, all the ingredients were laid down clearly. The Court held
that if all before a fear of injury arises, the accused has to threaten to do something unlawful or omit to do
something which he is legally bound to do. If all that a man does is to promise 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, it would not
be extortion. Therefore, in this case, the section would not be attracted since it did not amount to injury.

28

Tanumal Udha Singh AIR 1944 Sin 203 as cited in Ratanlal & Dhirajlals Law of Crimes (C.K. Thakker ed., New
Delhi: Bharat Law House, 2002) at 1954.
29

R.A. Nelsons Indian Penal Code Vol. 4 (S.K. Sarkaria ed., New Delhi: Lexis-Nexis Butterworths, 2003) at 3831.

30

(1960) 1 SCR 924.

31

(1985) 4 SCC 212.

32

AIR 1986 SC 2045.

13

Extortion as a Crime
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISHONESTLY INDUCE
The accused should have the intention that wrongful loss must be caused. If the accused
honestly believes that the money belongs to him, the attempt to get it back cannot be said to be with the
intention to cause wrongful loss.33 Thus, if the object of the accused is merely to realize debts, it would not
be extortion under Indian law as the element of dishonesty wont be established. 34 Thus, even if he uses
means far outweighing the gravity of the debt, he cant be held guilty of extortion. This is one failing of
Indian law and will be dealt with in the conclusion, when comparing it with English law.
Coming to the issue of inducement, it connotes that the delivery of the property should be with
consent which has been obtained by putting that person in fear of injury. In a case where the thumb
impressions of the victims were forcibly taken from them, it was held to be a use of criminal force as
opposed to extortion as the victims were not induced into giving their consent. 35

DELIVERY OF PROPERTY & VALUABLE SECURITY

Since property is not defined, it can be understood in a wide sense. It should be taken to mean
both movable and immovable property.36 Thus, it seems that the urge to protect economic rights is
manifested here also. As already mentioned, valuable security is defined in S. 30. However, the courts
have been liberal in its interpretation with respect to extortion and where a minor boy was forced to
execute a handnote, it was held that it amounted to a valuable security within the meaning of this section
read with section 30, because it enabled the accused or gave rise to a reasonable hope or expectation of
collecting substantial amount of money.37
That apart, the other thing to be noted here is that the essence of the offence of extortion is in the
actual delivery of possession of the property. The offence is not complete before such delivery. Thus, here
the person due to fear offers no resistance to the carrying off of his property but does not deliver any of
the property to those who carry it off, the offence would be robbery and not extortion. 38
33

Ratanlal & Dhirajlals Law of Crimes (C.K. Thakker ed., New Delhi: Bharat Law House, 2002) at 1955.

34

Lal Chand v. Emperor AIR 1942 Lah 253 as cited in R.A. Nelsons Indian Penal Code Vol. 4 (S.K. Sarkaria ed.,
New Delhi: Lexis-Nexis Butterworths, 2003) at 3832.
35

Jadunandan Singh v. Emperor AIR 1941 Pat 129 as cited in B.M. Gandhi, The Indian Penal Code (New Delhi:
Orient Publishing House, 1987) at 453.
36

Hyderabad State v. Beerappa & Ors. AIR 1951 Hyd 91 (FB) as cited in K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases &
Materials (2nd edn., Bombay: N.M. Tripathi Pvt. Ltd., 1985) at 569.
37

Ram Kamal Bezboruah v. Chandra Nath Kalita, 1971 Cri LJ 708 (Assam). In this case, the victim was abducted
and wrongfully confined by the accused who were armed. Fearing for his life, he wrote letters to his father for
payment of a ransom. By virtue of the letters, the abductors got a huge ransom. This was held to be extortion.
38

Ratanlal & Dhirajlals Law of Crimes (C.K. Thakker ed., New Delhi: Bharat Law House, 2002) at 1955.

14

Extortion as a Crime
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15

Extortion as a Crime
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION
After a thorough study of the ingredients of and cases dealing with extortion and blackmail, the
researcher has come to the conclusion that although there are a lot of similarities between the provisions
relating to the offence in the two legal systems, there are some areas in which the Indian Penal Code can
improve. The ingredient of demand in English law has its counterpart in the phrase delivery of property in
the IPC. These are quite similar, because the term demand is restricted by the requirement that it be
made with a view to gain or intent to cause loss. Delivery of property or valuable security also presumably
results in a gain to the accused. However, English law is broader since a demand for a profitable office
also would be a demand, although we daresay that valuable security also covers this since it is creating
a legal right.
Coming to the comparison between menaces in English law and fear of and injury in S. 383,
menaces has been recognised as including threats of any action detrimental to or unpleasant to the
person addressed. Injury is also wide in its connotation, but the fact that such injury must be a criminal
offence or actionable otherwise, makes it narrower in its scope than menaces. There is some scope for
improvement in the Indian law here, since there is always a chance that the accused may get away on
such a technicality, notwithstanding the hardship caused to the victim. However, both laws are similar in
that the threat must be of such a nature and extent that the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability
and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive as to accede unwillingly to the demand, though
the Law Commission has recommended the insertion of a subjective element into it.
Unwarranted demand is akin to the usage of the term dishonestly in S. 383. The difference is
that in Indian law, there is only the requirement that the accused honestly believed that the property was
rightfully his, while in English law, there are two requirements: firstly, he has to believe that he has
reasonable grounds for making the demand and secondly, he should also believe that the means used
were proper. As mentioned earlier, this would justify in India, the use of threats to recover a debt. In
English law, what would be considered is whether the use of the threat is compatible with the reasonable
grounds which the accused thought he had. Also, the additional requirement of belief that the means were
proper lends to the English law a more victim friendly face. However, in the IPCs defence, improper
means would usually be covered under other sections of the IPC and there is no real need to include
such a requirement.

A view to gain or intent to cause loss in English law is comparable to deliver

to any person any

property or valuable security. Since extortion and blackmail are offences against property, it is only right
to construe both these provisions as dealing with only economic rights. As such, the English law which is

16

Extortion as a Crime
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------capable of being interpreted widely is narrowed in its scope and attains a position equivalent to that of
Indian law, which states clearly what all it intends to be protected.
Thus, it can be concluded that the Indian law relating to extortion can be improved, albeit slightly,
by incorporating some provisions of English law. S. 383 suffers from rigidity; there is almost no scope for
interpretation in a victim-friendly manner, unlike English law which can easily be molded according to the
facts of the case.

17

Extortion as a Crime
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS

B.M. Gandhi, The Indian Penal Code (New Delhi: Orient Publishing House, 1987).

D.S. Chopra, The Indian Penal Code (Bombay: C.C. Shah & Co., 1984).

J. Kaplan et al., Criminal Law (4th edn., New York: Aspen Publishers Inc., 2000).

J.C. Smith et al., Criminal Law: Cases & Materials (2nd edn., London: Butterworths, 1980).

J.C. Smith, The Law of Theft (5th edn., London: Butterworths, 1984).

J.M. Scheb et al., Criminal Law (2nd edn., Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing, 1999).

J.N. Soonawala, The Supreme Court on the Indian Penal Code (Nagpur: Wadhwa & Co., 1990).

K.D. Gaur, A textbook on the Indian Penal Code (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing, 2004).

K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases & Materials (2nd edn., Bombay: N.M. Tripathi Pvt. Ltd., 1985).

L.N. Weinreb, Criminal Law (4th edn., New York: The Foundation Press, 1986).

P.E. Johnson, Criminal Law (3rd edn., Minnesota: West Publishing Co., 1985).

P.S.A. Pillais Criminal Law (V. Suresh et al eds., New Delhi: Butterworths, 2000).

R. Heaton, Criminal Law (London: Blackstone Press Ltd., 1998).

R.A. Nelsons Indian Penal Code Vol. 4 (S.K. Sarkaria ed., New Delhi: Lexis-Nexis Butterworths,
2003).

Ratanlal & Dhirajlals Law of Crimes (C.K. Thakker ed., New Delhi: Bharat Law House, 2002).

Russell on Crime Vol. 2 (12th edn., J.W.C. Turner ed., New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co.
Pvt. Ltd., 2001).

INTERNET SOURCES

www.manupatra.com

www.westlaw.com

18