Extortion requires the victim to be induced to deliver property or valuable security by putting them in fear of injury. Robbery requires the use of force or attempt to use force for the purpose of committing theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft.

1. Petitioner Most. Indrasana Kuer lodged a first information report before the police on 24-12-1965 with regard to an incident which took place on 22-12-1965. Her allegations were that on the date of occurrence the opposite party variously armed came to her house, assaulted her and forcibly took her thumb impression on several pieces of paper. When on hulla her brother Jugal and Pujari Satyadeo Ojha along with other persons arrived, they assaulted Jugal and Satyadeo as well and forcibly took thumb impression of Satyadeo also on some pieces of paper. They also removed two boxes containing ornaments and cash along with other articles belonging to the informant. It appears that during the course of investigation a protest petition was filed on 4-1-1966. After completion of investigation, police submitted a final report. But on the basis of the protest petition already filed earlier. Most. Indrasana Kuer was examined on solemn affirmation on 4-12-1966. Subsequently, the subdivisional Magistrate took cognizance of the case on 14-12-1966 and the case was transferred to the file of Shri S.L. Singh, Honorary Magistrate, 1st class, Arrah, for disposal. It appears that subsequently the case was transferred to the file of Shri N.K. Singh with first class powers. After some witnesses were examined, it appears a contention was raised on behalf of the complainant that the case was one under Sec.395 of the Indian Penal Code, which is exclusively triable by a Court of session. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate rejected the contention of the complainant by his order dated 1-1-1968. The learned Magistrate framed charges under Ss.323, 342, 352, 380 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) only. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a revision application before the Sessions Judge for directing further enquiry. Having failed there the complainant has filed this revision application.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the facts stated in the evidence of the witnesses clearly indicate that offences under Sections 386 and 395 of the Code, which are exclusively tribable by a Court of session, are made out in this case, and as such the learned Magistrate should have framed charges under those two sections as well, after adopting the procedure prescribed under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The point for consideration, therefore, is whether, on the facts of this case, prima facie offences under Sections 386 and 395 of the Code are made out.

3. Sec.386 of the Code runs as follows :-

"Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Extortion has been defined in Sec.383 of the Code as follows :-

"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. "

So one of the necessary ingredients of the offence of extortion is that the victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, etc. That is to say, the delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in extortion there is a element of consent, of course, obtained by putting the victim in fear of injury. In extortion the will of the victim has to be overpowered by putting him in fear of injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition. It has to be shown that the person was induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of injury. The illustrations to the section given in the Code make this perfectly cle