CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH

BIHAR

In the partial fulfillment of the requirement on the subject of criminal law-1

of BA.LLB (Hons)

ACADEMIC YEAR:- 2019-2020

Submitted on 5th November 2019

Theft and Extortion

Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Dr.P.K Mishra Pratik kumar

Head Of Department, B.A LLB (Hons.)

School of law and governance , CUSB1813125066

Central university of South Bihar 3rd Semester (2018-2023)

1|Page
Acknowledgement
I, Pratik kumar, take extreme pleasure in expressing my profound gratitude towards my
criminal law-1 teacher Dr. P.K Mishra for inspiring me and giving me the invaluable guidance
and constant support throughout the course of my project work. I have taken efforts in thus kind
project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind support of my teacher,
friends, colleagues and many more individual persons, writers, college staffs, librarians and other
sources of e-resource. I would like to sincere thanks to all of them.

I thank my parents for providing me everything whatever be required for the completion of this
project.

Finally, I would like to thanks all Kith & Kins who are a little bit part in helping me for this kind
project.

2|Page
Pratik kumar

Table of Content
 Introduction
 Abstract
 Research Methodlogy
 Aims and Objectives
 Research Hypothesis

1. Theft
 Explanation
 Illustration
2. Law of England
3. Law of Canada
4. Ingredients for theft
 Dishonest intention
 Movable property
 Without consent
 Taking away from possession of another
5. Extortion
1. Ingredients

6. Theft and Extortion Distinguished

7. Punishment for extortion
8. Putting person in fear of injury
9. Forms of extortion
10. Conclusion

3|Page
TABLE OF CASES

S. No. Name of Case Citation

1. R v. Smith (2011)EWCA Crime 66

(2012)EWCH 1657
2 P v. Director of Public Prosecutors (admin) (vide hal’sbury
law of England)
3 Avatar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1965 SCR (1) 103

4 Rasanand Vindani v. State of Orrisa AIR 1992 CR LJ 121 Ori

5 State of Haryana v. Hussain AIR 2007 1131

6 Vishnu shivram v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 1943

7 Chandrika v. Ram klrishan AIR 1985 SC 154

8 Gurusharan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1996 (10) SCC 190

9 Rameshchandra Arora v. State AIR 1960 SC 154

10 Queen v. Nathzlirc Mirand, (1884) 1 Cox CC 22

4|Page
Abstract:- Theft is a criminal act in which specific injury or damage caused by another
person action . Theft and extortion is an offences against the property, defined under section378
and 383 IPC respectively. TO some extent provision fo0r the violation of property have been
given in civil law and remedies are sought by private individuals in courts .when the violation of
property become violent or fraudulent, the state step in the matter by using the machinery of its
criminal law for the protection of the property of the citizens. Theft under IPC extended up to
section378 to section 382,and punishment for the offence of theft defined under this section.
Extortion dealt under section 383 to 389,and punishment for this offence also prescribed between
these section. Offences against property classifies under following heads in the chapter No.XVII.

Research Methodology:-
Research Methodology: This project is basically based on the doctrinal method of research as
no field work is done on this topic.

Aims & Objectives: To do an in depth analysis about the offences against the property under
the Indian panel code.

Sources of Data: This whole project is being created with the use of secondary source. The
following secondary sources of data have been used in the project:

 Books

 Websites

Mode of Citation: The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation throughout the
course of this project paper.

Type of Study: For this topic, the researcher has opted for Descriptive and Explanatory type of
study as in this topic, the researcher is providing the descriptions of the existing facts.

Research Hypothesis: The assumption of the whole project topic is to find out that what type of
the offence constitutes the offence against the property and what type of punishment given to the
convicted person.

5|Page
 ..

6|Page
 Introduction
To live in a peaceful surrounding in society, there is need of protection of not only for the person
of individuals, but also for their property. From very longer time, the whole system of
jurisprudence made provision for its protection. In today era, offences against the person and the
offence against the property increasing gradually. So, Indian Panel Code consists of both the
offences. It define the offences and also describes punishment for the offence committed and
attempted to commit .In Indian Panel Code offences against the person is start ed from section
378 to section 478.This the second longest Chapter of Indian Panel Code. Theft is also an
offence against the property of a person which is defined under section 378 of IPC.

Theft has been dealt under section 378to 382. Theft is an offence in which movable Property of a
person is taken away without his consent. Punishment for the offence of theft has been defined
under section 379 of IPC. Whosoever have intention to take any movable property of person out
of his possession without his consent, this act is called as theft. For this overt act, an individual
will be penalized under the prescribed section, either with imprisonment for three years or fine,
or may be both.

A person could be held guilty of committing theft of his own property. For example, when a
person removes his property after attachment from the person to whom it has been entrusted
without recourse to the court under whose order the attachment has been made, he will be guilty
of theft.

Extortion means obtaining money or property by threat to a victim’s property or loved ones,
intimidation, or false claim of a right. It is a felony in all states, except that a direct threat to harm
the victim is usually treated as the crime of robbery. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which
the threat is to expose embarrassing, damaging information to family, friends or the public.1

1
Dictionary.law.com

7|Page
 Section. 378. Theft

378. Theft.—Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the
possession of any other person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to
such taking, is said to commit theft.

Explanation 1.—A things so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is
not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is
severed from the earth.

Explanation 2.— A moving affected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft.

Explanation 3.— A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which
prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving
it.

Explanation 4.—A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that
animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that
animal.

Explanation 5.—The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may
be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority
either express or implied.

Illustrations

  A cuts down a tree on Z’s ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of
Z’s possession without Z’s consent. Here, as soon as A has severed the tree in order to
such taking, he has committed theft.
  A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Z’s dog to follow it. Here, if A’s
intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent. A has
committed theft as soon as Z’s dog has begun to follow A.

8|Page
   A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure. He drives the bullock in a certain
direction, in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure. As soon as the bullock
begins to move, A has committed theft of the treasure.
 A, being Z’s servant, and entrusted by Z with the care of Z’s plate, dishonestly runs
away with the plate, without Z’s consent. A has committed theft.
 Z, going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of the warehouse, till Z shall
return. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it. Here the plate was not in Z’s
possession. It could not therefore be taken out of Z’s possession, and A has not
committed theft, though he may have committed criminal breach of trust. A finds a ring
belonging to Z on a table in the house which Z occupies. Here the ring is in Z’s
possession, and if A dishonestly removes it, A commits theft.
  A finds a ring lying on the highroad, not in the possession of any person. A by taking it,
commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property.
  A sees a ring belonging to Z lying on a table in Z’s house. Not venturing to
misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A hides the ring in a
place where it is highly improbable that it will ever be found by Z, with the intention of
taking the ring from the hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten. Here A, at
the time of first moving the ring, commits theft.
 A delivers his watch to Z, a jeweller, to be regulated. Z carries it to his shop. A, not
owing to the jeweller any debt for which the jeweller might lawfully detain the watch as a
security, enters the shop openly, takes his watch by force out of Z’s hand, and carries it
away. Here A, though he may have committed criminal trespass and assault, has not
committed theft, in as much as what he did was not done dishonestly.
 If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the watch lawfully as a
security for the debt, and A takes the watch out of Z’s possession, with the intention of
depriving Z of the property as a security for his debt, he commits theft, in as much as he
takes it dishonestly.
  Again, if A, having pawned his watch to Z, takes it out of Z’s possession without Z’s
consent, not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he commits theft, though the
watch is his own property in as much as he takes it dishonestly.

9|Page
   A takes an article belonging to Z out of Z’s possession, without Z’s consent, with the
intention of keeping it until he obtains money from Z as a reward for its restoration. Here
A takes dishonestly; A has therefore committed theft.
 A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence, and takes away a
book without Z’s express consent for the purpose merely of reading it, and with the
intention of returning it. Here, it is probable that A may have conceived that he had Z’s
implied consent to use Z’s book. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft.
  A asks charity from Z’s wife. She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows to
belong to Z her husband. Here it is probable that A may conceive that Z’s wife is
authorised to give away alms. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft.
  A is the paramour of Z’s wife. She gives a valuable property, which A knows to belong
to her husband Z, and to be such property as she has no authority from Z to give. If A
takes the property dishonestly, he commits theft.
 A, in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A’s own property, takes that
property out of B’s possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit
theft. Comments Ingredients The delay in hearing of appeal for long period is no cause
for not interfering with an order of acquittal which was based on conjectures and
surmises, resulting in gross failure of justice; State of Rajasthan v. Shanker2, Taking need
not be permanent It is not necessary that the taking should be of a permanent character, or
that the accused should have derived any profit. A temporary removal of an office file
from the office of a Chief Engineer and making it available to a private person for a day
or two amounts to the offence of theft3.

Law of England
2
2000 CR LJ 266 (Raj)
3
PyareLal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094

10 | P a g e
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the
intention of permanently depriving the other of it; “Theft” and “steal” are to be construed
accordingly. It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with s is made for the thief’s own
benefit. A person guilty of theft is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding seven years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
six months or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum or to both.

R v. Smith, In this case, Smith and his two co-appellants arranged to met a drug dealer. Whilst
the meeting was going on, all of them attacked on the dealer. Due to sudden attack dealer
couldn’t understood the situation and the reason for the attack. They stole around 50 Euro of
heroin of the dealer. They all were convicted of the offence of the robbery. They challenged their
conviction on the basis that the alleged act was known to the law because the heroin, which is an
unlawful subject was in possession of the victim. The matter on which conviction is given didn’t
subject to “property” in the term of section 4 of the Theft Act 1968 and , therefore, there could
be no appropriation. The court of appeal noted that, section 4of the Theft Act 1968 identified a
number of item which could not be stolen, there exclusion didn’t extend to property which was
unlawfully possessed. Further, the court said, nothing in the Theft Act 1968 that whatever the
property which was in the3 possession in an unlawful, illegal, or Prohibited manner lost the
status of the ‘property” in the term of the Act. Therefore, the appropriation of the prohibited
drugs constituted theft and the circumstances in which the appropriation took place amounted to
robbery. The conviction was therefore upheld4. In P v. Director of Public Prosecutor5, it was
held,” the instant case fall squarly on the side of pick pocketing and such cases, in which there
was no direct physical contact between the thief and the victim. It could not be said that the
minimal use of force used to remove a cigarette from the fingers of the person sufficed to use of
the force on that person. Such force could not cause any pain unless perhaps the person resisted
strongly, Inevitably resulting in direct contact between the persons.

Law of Canada

4
R v. Smith, (2011) EWCA Crimes 66.hk,hk,hj
5
2012 EWHC 1657 (Admin) (vide Halsbury’s law of England).

11 | P a g e
It is an indictable offence to commit theft where the property stolen is testamentary
Instrument or the value of what is stolen exceeds $5000. Where the value of what5 is stolen is
not exceeds to $5000, theft is hybrid offence. “Theft” means to take or to convert anything,
whether animate or inanimate, to use of the accused or another person, with intent:

 To deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special
property or interest in it;
 To pledge it or deposit it as security;
 To part with it under a condition with respect to0 it return that the person who parts with
it may unable to perform; or
 To deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was
at the time it was taken or converted.

The tasking or conversion must be done fraudulently and without color of right. A person
commit theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be
moved, or begin to cause it to become moveable

Ingredients of theft
To constitute any offence, there are need of some ingredients which must be fulfilled. Like this,
theft has also some ingredients, they are follows as:-
1. Dishonest intention to take property.
2. The property must be movable.
3. Such property should be taken out of the possession of another person.
4. There must be some moving of property in order to such taking.
5. It should be taken without the consent of that person.

It is an essential elements of the offence of theft that the movable property should have been
moved out of the possession of the any person without his consent. That is possible only if
the person moving the property had taken it out of his possession of the person concerned
and transferred it to his own possession in order to move it for the purpose of taking it
dishonestly. It follows that transfer of the possession of the property, however transient, i8s
an essential ingredients of an offence of theft.

Dishonest intention to take the property: - Intention is the centerpiece or core of any
offence. The taking of any property out of possession of another person will not amount of theft
if it is not taken dishonestly. It must be taken to cause wrongful loss to one person and wrongful
gain to another one. There will be no theft where there is no dishonesty. For example, if A take
the property out of possession of B in good faith, believing that it is belonging to him. Here, As,

12 | P a g e
it is clear that there is not dishonest intention of A to take the property of B, as such A does not
commit theft.

Movable property: - Any property is said to be movable when it is capable of being carried
out. The property which is fixed or attached to the earth can be said to be immovable property.
Like, House, industry, manufacturing plant and factory. These are the property which can’t be
moved from one place to another place. A property can become movable when it is being
severed from the earth. A standing tree cannot be a movable property until and unless it is being
cut down. This is defined under section 378 of Indian panel code that a property become
movable when it is severed from the Earth. A stone, sand quarried ( It is the place where sand,
stone etc is dug out of the ground) and carried out belonging to another is theft. If timber is being
cut down which does not belonging to that person, constitute the offence of theft.

In Avtar singh v. state of Punjab 6, in this case supreme court observed that electricity cannot be
considered to be a matter of movable property. But it is an offence under the section 39 of Indian
Electricity Act 1910.It says, whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy shall be
deemed to have committed theft within the meaning of IPC.

In Rasanand Bindani v. state of Orrisa7, accused of the offence have stolen some electric wire.
The wire was found at the house of the accused. The wire which was recovered from the accused
house was no simply available in the market. Those wire was under the authority of electricity
board of Orrisa. A lay had not the authority to use such wire for the domestic purpose. So,
circumstances was against the accused and his overt act constitute the4 offence of theft.
Punishment was awarded to the accused as a rigorous imprisonment of one year.

As regards, the theft of human body, either alive or dead, it is not capable of being stolen
because it does not subject to movable property within the meaning of section 22 of IPC. Section
22 of Indian panel code stimulates that the” movable property” are intend to include corporeal
property of every description, except land and things attached to the Earth or permanently
fastened to anything which is attached to the Earth.

Without consent: - To constitute the offence of theft, the removable of property must be
without the consent of the person in possession of it. If someone obtained the consent of a person
by using the force, it is not consent. As section 90 of Indian panel code says, any consent
obtained by the medium of fear of injury or under a misconception of fact, iot is not consent
under law. Likewise consent of insane person or intoxicated person, is not consent under law
because in both the situation, they wouldn’t be able to understand the fact and consequence of
the act. Such person wouldn’t able to make a rational judgment. Taking property through
misrepresentation will not constitute the offence of theft. It comes under the offence of cheating.

6
AIR 1965, 666, 1965 SCR (1) 103
7
AIR 1992 CR LJ 121 Orrisa

13 | P a g e
This overt act of a person will not treated as theft because IPC creates a seperate offence of this
deeds, defined under section 420 of IPC8.

Taking away from possession of another person: - The property which is in question
must be in the possession of someone. Such as , A take way the bike of B without his consent for
wrongful gain. The act of A will constitute the offence of theft because the consent of the party
was not given and the object was in the possession of someone else. But if A finds a ring on the
road. He kept that ring with him. That ring might be in the possession of others. If A takes that
ring, this act of A will not constitute the offence of theft because the time he found the ring was
not in the possession of any others. As per the ingredients of the Theft, the object must be in the
possession of the other person at the time of taking9.

If Z, give his pets to A to keep it for him till he returned back from his journey. Meanwhile A
carries the pets with him and sells it to a person. This act of A will not amount to theft because
the thing was already in the possession of A10.

Punishment for the offence of theft is described under the section 379 of Indian panel code. The
person who will commit theft or attempted to commit theft shall be punished with imprisonment
for a period of three years or with fine or may be both. The imprisonment may be simple or
rigorous, it will awarded according to gravity of the offence.

After punishment under section 379 IPC, further defined, whoever commit theft in any buildings,
tent, or vessel in which these places are used as human dwelling, or used for the property of
custody, shall be punished with the imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years and shall be liable to fine11. The word “dwelling house” signifies A Place
which is used by one or more person as a residence rather than for business. Dwelling house
means where person lives or remains whether permanently or temporarily. A railway waiting
room is a building used for the purpose of human dwelling house. The offence under this section
is cognizable, non- bailable, non- compondable and triable by a magistrate. To constitute the
offence of theft from a dwelling house shall also followed all the ingredients with is followed by
theft itself. Theft in dwelling house is another aspects of the of the offence against property like
theft. The most prominently, in order to constitute the offence of theft in dwelling house; the
property stolen was from the buildings, tent or the custody of property. If a person takes
something dishonestly or for wrongful gain without the consent of person from a dwelling house,
will constitute theft.

8
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, section 420, IPC
9
Illustration (g) of section 378 IPC
10
Illustration (z) of section 378 IP
11
Section 380 IPC

14 | P a g e
In state of Haryana v. Husain12, Appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
28.9.2004 passed by the high court of the haryana and Punjab at Chandigarh whereby the single
judgment of the high court set aside the judgment and order of the trail court convicting the
respondent for the commission of the offence under section 380, 457 and 460 of Indian Panel
Code causing grievous hurt by committing the theft in dwelling house and punishment awarded
for his overt act. The court sentenced the convicted person to undergo for the imprisonment for
four years and a fine of Rs 1000 for the commission of the offence under5 section 380, Indian
Panel Code, rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1000. The high court gave
cogent reasons in support of its view and there was no infirmity of perversity in the reasoning of
the High court.

Whoever being a clerk or servant, or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant,
commits theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term of which may extend to seven years,
and shall also be liable for fine.13 The possession of the master or employer need to be actual
physical possession. Even a constructive possession is sufficient for the purposes of this section.
A servant or clerk is a person who is bound either by an express or implied contract of service to
obey the orders of his master and submit to the control of his master in the transaction of the
business which it is his duty to person as such clerk or servant. An unpaid apprentice is a clerk or
servant within the meaning of this section.

Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to commit theft, Any
one who commits the offence theft after having preparation for causing death or hurt, or
restraints, or to cause fear of death, or of hurt, in order to committing such theft or in order to the
effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft or in order to retaining the property
taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous punishment for a term which may extended
to ten years, and shall also be liable for fine. The offences like this is non bailable, cognizable or
non compoundable. Whoever commits this offence in order for wrongful gain will penalized
under the section 382 IPC. The Punishment for this offence will awarded as imprisonment up to
10 years and fine and may be both. This types of offences is triable by the magistrate of first
class. If hurt is actually caused at the time of committing theft will comes under the offence of
robbery and not under this section. There is a little bit difference between the offence of
robbery14 and the theft under this section is that in the case of robbery, some injury is actually
inflicted in the case of robbery, while under the section 383IPc, all preparations made for the
effecting his escape after committing such theft or to retain the property stolen15.

Criminal appeal No. 1131 of 2007, decide on 29-6-16, Abhay Manohar Sapre and Ashok
12

bhusan, JJ
13
Section 381, IPC
14
Section 390 IPC
15
Nga Shan Gale, (1904) 1 Cr Lj 70.

15 | P a g e
 Extortion
Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other person,
and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or
valuable security or anything signed16. Extortion is the crime or offence against the property
defined under chapter 19of Indian Panel Code. It is a crime of obtaining something from
someone, especially money, by using the force or threats. The offence of extortion and theft have
a very fine distinction. There is very little bit distinction between theft and extortion. In theft, the
property is removed or taken away for the wrongful gain without the consent of the person in
possession whereas in extortion there is delivery of property with the consent induced by fear
and therefore, more akin to robbery than to theft.

The offence of extortion also consists of some ingredients which must be fulfilled. They are as
follows:

1. Putting a person into fear.

2. The fear caused to a person should be 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 caused intentionally.
4. As a result 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
who 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.

Putting person into fear:- The fear of injury must be real in nature, so as to settle the mind
of the person upon whom it is exercised in such a way that the act does not remain voluntary.
The injury that a person may be put in fear of is not necessarily physical injury. Injury to the
character is also an injury. The situation in which the forced in being used by other person and
another person received the property all would be guilty of extortion. They all would be
penalized under the section 38417 of Indian panel code. Anyone who threats to expose bishop of
his illegal relationship with a woman was held to be extortion18.

Dishonest inducement to deliver of property or valuable security: - A threat to

use the process of law for the purpose of blackmailing is criminal and when property or
documents obtained by the threats for the purpose, the offence of extortion is committed.
Delivery of the property by the person put in fear is the essence of the offence under this section.
In other words, to constitute the offence of extortion there must be fear and delivery of property.

16
Section 383 Indian Panel Code
17
Punishment for extortion
18
Queen v. Nathalirc Mirand, (1884) 1 Cox CC 22

16 | P a g e
Property under this section does not limited only to movable property, if any person by the
inducement of fear obtained an immovable property will amount to extortion.

Theft and extortion: Distinguished.-

1. In theft, the property of another person is taken away without the consent of the person
possession, while in extortion the consent of the owner of the property is obtained
wrongfully.
2. Theft may be only constituted in respect of movable property, but in extortion the
property may be movable or immovable.
3. In theft there is nothing elements like force but in extortion property is obtained by
putting a person into fear of injury and there by inducing him to part with his property.
4. The property is not deliver by owner in theft but in extortion there is delivery of property.

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.

The offence of extortion is committed by overpowering the will of the owner possessor of
property, as the case may be. In the theft, it is necessary that the property which is the subject
matter of theft is in possession of the some person, it being taken out from the possession
constitutes the offences, such other person may or may not by the owner thereof. Extortion may
be committed on a person who may not be in possession of the property but who being owner or
otherwise authorized is capable of affecting a transfer thereof by delivering anything signed or
sealed.

In Visnu shiv Ram v. state of Maharashtra19. In this case, court convicted the accused and
made him liable under section 381/ 14920. Some person surrounded victims and extorted certain
amount as price for sparing them. This amount was paid to accused persons. There was no
evidence of any looted property by accused. The accused person was liable under the section
above stated. In chandraka v. Ramakrishan21, In this case, the accused was a headmaster of a
school, called a lady teacher of the school to a place where he was all alone, induced her to
signed three blank paper by threatening her to outrage her modesty if she refused to sign then .
The court held the accused guilt of the offence of extortion. In Ramesh Chandra Arora v.
state22, the accused , made a young girl and young man to stand side by side, compelled them to
undress themselves . while they were undressing each other, accused take the photograph of
them. Then after, accused started blackmailing and demanding money . Accused was inducing
fear of publishing photos. The accused was held guilty of the offence of extortion.

19
AIR 1972 SC 1943
20
Section 149, every person of unlawful assembly guilt of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
21
AIR 1985 SC 154
22
AIR 1960 SC 154

17 | P a g e
Section 385:- Putting persons in fear of injury to commit extortion,- This section
provide for punishment of an extortion which remained at the stage of threat, or attempts, the
offence not being committed. As it clear that, an attempt brings a man very closer to the actual
commission of the offence. An attempt is always punishable under the law because offender is
near to complete the offence. This is the third stages of the crime defined under section 51123 of
Indian panel code. The punishment for this attempt is punishable under this section and the
punishment may extend up to two years of imprisonment of either description, or fine of may be
both.

Ingredients:-
1. The extortioner puts or attempted to puts any person in fear of injury;
2. There must be intention to commit extortion.

There are different types of extortion defined from section 384-389

1. Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt to person or to any other. It
is punishable with imprisonment of either description up to ten years and fine24.
2. Putting or attempting to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to himself or
to any other in order to commit such offences. The punishment is imprisonment to either
description up to seven years and fine or may be both. In Gurusharan Singh v. State of
Punjab25, the accused was held guilty under this section for demanding the money for the
purpose of buying weapons to be used against the terrorist, and threatening the person to
whom the money was demanded, of dire consequences if the money was not paid to him.
3. Extortion by threat of accusation of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment
for life, or ten years’ imprisonment or of having attempted to induce any other person to
commit such offence26.
4. Putting or attempted to put any person in fear of an accusation mentioned in section 388
in order to commit extortion punishment is same as under last section.

23
Section 511- Attempt to commit offences
24
Section 386 chapter 19 (offences against property)
25
AIR 1996 (10) SCC 190
26
Section 388 IPC

18 | P a g e
 Conclusion
Theft and extortion are the offences against the property. Both have find a prominent place
under Indian panel Code. The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking or
using of another property which must be accompanied by mens rea of dishonesty or the intent to
permanently deprived the owner. Taking out of the possession of other person without his
consent is the main ingredients or necessary ingredients to commit the offence of theft under
section 378 IPC. If any of the ingredients not found in an act of the person, then it would not
come under the purview of section 378 IPC and the accused cannot be punished under section
379 of IPC. Whoever commits the offence of extortion will penalized with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine. Punishment for the
offence of theft have been provided under section 379. As per nature or gravity of the offence,
punishment may given up to imprisonment of ten years.

19 | P a g e
 Bibliography and Refrences

BOOKS:-

1. R.N. Saxena, The Indian Panel Code ( Act No. XLV of 1860), 19th Edition, Central Law
Publications.
2. K.D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Panel Code, 6th Edition, Universal law Publishing.
3. General principles of Criminal law, K.N chandrasekharan pillai, 2nd edition, Eastern Book
Company.
4. R A Nelson’s Indian Panel Code, (including the criminal law amendment, 2018, 12th
Edition, volume 3 , LexisNexis.
5. P S A Pillai’s Criminal Law 11th Edition LexisNexis.

Websites:-
 www.Indiankanoon.com
 www.legalbites.in

20 | P a g e
21 | P a g e
22 | P a g e