The offence of criminal intimidation under S. 506, Indian Penal Code, is committed when a person threatens another with injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Extortion - Conviction under S. 506, Indian Penal Code - Validity - Enhancement of sentence by High Court - Legality - Transfer of appeal from Sessions Judge to High Court - Validity.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under S. 506, Indian Penal Code, for threatening the complainant with injury to his reputation by publishing nude photographs of his daughter, with intent to extort money. The High Court enhanced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant challenged the conviction and the enhancement of sentence on various grounds.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the enhancement of sentence. It held that the appellant's act of threatening the complainant with injury to his reputation by publishing nude photographs of his daughter, with intent to extort money, constituted the offence of criminal intimidation under S. 506, Indian Penal Code. The High Court had the power to enhance the sentence under S. 439, Criminal Procedure Code, after having given the appellant an opportunity to show cause in the matter of his conviction as well as sentence. The transfer of the appeal from the Sessions Judge to the High Court was valid under S. 526, Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's act of threatening the complainant with injury to his reputation by publishing nude photographs of his daughter, with intent to extort money, constituted the offence of criminal intimidation under S. 506, Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the High Court had the power to enhance the sentence under S. 439, Criminal Procedure Code, after having given the appellant an opportunity to show cause in the matter of his conviction as well as sentence? 3. Whether the transfer of the appeal from the Sessions Judge to the High Court was valid under S. 526, Criminal Procedure Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's act of threatening the complainant with injury to his reputation by publishing nude photographs of his daughter, with intent to extort money, constituted the offence of criminal intimidation under S. 506, Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that the appellant's intention was to force the complainant to pay "hush money" to him, and that this intention came more properly under the second category of intent mentioned in S. 503, Indian Penal Code, that is, to cause the complainant to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, as a means of avoiding the execution of the threat. 2. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had the power to enhance the sentence under S. 439, Criminal Procedure Code, after having given the appellant an opportunity to show cause in the matter of his conviction as well as sentence. The Court observed that the High Court had validly before it both the appeal and the rule for enhancement of sentence, and that the appellant was fully heard with regard to both. Therefore, no question arose of depriving the appellant of any of his rights under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The Supreme Court held that the transfer of the appeal from the Sessions Judge to the High Court was valid under S. 526, Criminal Procedure Code. The Court observed that the High Court had the power to act on its own initiative in passing such an order, and that the appellant could make no grievance of the order of transfer on the ground of prejudice, because he was fully heard both as to the correctness of his conviction and the propriety of the sentence originally passed against him by the learned Magistrate.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Judgment

S. K. DAS, J. : This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are somewhat sordid and we shall set out such of them only as are relevant to it. On December 14, 1954, a person whom we shall refer to as X submitted a written report to the Superintendent of Police, Delhi City, to the effect that one of his daughters was being molested and threatened by the appellant and that he had received letters of an objectionable nature from him "for the purpose of blackmailing and extorting money". Some of these letters were shown to the superintendent of Police. The latter sent the report to the Station Officer, Karol Bagh police station, with a direction to register a case under S. 506, Indian Penal Code, and investigate it. The Station Officer investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet against the appellant. He also took in charge some of the letters said to have been received by X. They contained a reference to photographs of a daughter of X, and at least one of the letters said that a sample photograph was being enclosed with it. These photographs, it appeared subsequently in evidence, were taken in the nude and were of a character which, if made public, would undoubtedly compromise the reputation of the girl as well as of her father. X said in evidence that he first tried to persuade the father and other relatives of the appellant to exercise their influence on the appellant so as to put a stop to the blackmail. He, however, failed to get any sympathetic response from them. In November 1954 he met the appellant and requested him to behave properly; the appellant, however, said that it was his profession to extort money by blackmail through girls and he further threatened that he would circulate the photographs to be relatives of the girl unless "hush money" was paid. The appellant was tried on a charge under S. 506, Indian Penal Code by the learned Magistrate exercising first class powers at Delhi. The learned Magistrate found that the appellant took indecent photographs of the girl by showing false love to her, and threatened X, in letters written to him, with publication of the photographs with intent to extort money from the latter. He accordingly convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. This was on 18-5-1956.

3. On 9-6-1956, the appellant preferred an appeal from his conviction and sentence to the Session Judge of Delhi. It appears, however, that on 14-6-1956, Kapur, J. of the Punjab High Court (as he then was) suo motu called for the record of the case on reading a report thereof in a newspaper, and directed the issue of a notice to the appellant to show cause why the sentence should not be enhance. Presumably, this action was taken under the provisions of Ss. 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 17-8-1956, the appeal pending before the Sessions Judge of Delhi was transferred to the High Court itself for hearing. We again presume that this order was passed under the provisions of S. 526(1)(e)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; because neither the order dated 14-6-1956, nor the order dated 17-8-1956, have been printed in the paper book and the exact terms of the two orders have not been made available to us. The High Court heard together the appeal and the rule for enhancement. By a judgment pronounced on 21-12-1956, it affirmed the finding of the learned Magistrate, upheld the conviction, dismissed the appeal, and enhanced the sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment. On or about 10-1-1957, an application was moved on behalf of the appellant for a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court in which it was alleged (1) that on the finding of the learned Magistrate affirmed by the High Court, the appellant could only be found guilty of the offence under S. 384 read with S. 511, Indian Penal Code, for which the maximum punishment was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1959 Supreme(SC) 174

Cases Referred (1)