JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, J. - This is a criminal revision from an order convicting the applicant u/s 384 of the Indian Penal Code. The case, against the accused is to be split up into two parts, although the sentence is one for both the convictions.

2. The first charge against the accused was that he extorted a sum of Rs. 45 and a further sum of Rs. 20 from one Jodha Teli. It appears that the Co-operative Bank had a decree against one Behari, Brahmin and others. In execution of this decree the amin was sent to the village to attach property belonging to the judgment-debtors. Mr. Tandon, the Assistant Manager, the present accused, who is the Secretary of the Society, and the auditor of the Bank also appear to have accompanied the amin to the village. It is said that on the 29th of November, 1921, the accused pointed out certain crops as belonging to the judgment-debtors, and on the crops having been so pointed out, the amin attached them. The document signed by the amin shows that the crops were pointed out by the Assistant Manager as well as by the Secretary. The paper was signed by the Assistant Manager, admitting that he pointed out the crops, but was signed by the Secretary as a witness. The fact, however, remains that neither the Assistant Manager, nor the Secretary had power to attach the crops. It was the amin alone who had authority to do so and there can be no doubt that the act of attachment must be attributed to the amin and to no one else.

3. The crops attached by the amin, however, did not, as a matter of fact, belong to Behari Brahmin. Jodha was a co-sharer of Behari in some fields, though not necessarily of the fields of which the crops had been attached. The crops belonged to Jodha and consequently he protested against the attachment. The story told by some of the prosecution witnesses is that before the attachment took place, the accused wanted some money and promised in return not to get these crops attached. This, however, is said to have happened in the village itself. The accused is not charged with anything that happened in the village, but is charged with having extorted money at Budaun. The occurrence at Budaun was some two days after the attachment had been made. Jodha accompanied by two other persons went to the accused and begged of him to get the crops released. The accused promised to get them released and settled his gratification at Rs. 65, out of which Rs. 45 were paid to him, then and there, and the balance was paid in the village some months after.

4. Both the Courts below have accepted the prosecution story that the accused did receive the sum of Rs. 45 and Rs. 20 from Jodha Teli. In revision I cannot say that the Courts below were wrong in believing that story. The question still remains whether the facts constituted an offence within the meaning of Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code. I have had the statement of the complainant read over to me, and the story told by him as to what happened at Budaun is that when he begged of the accused to get the crops released, the accused abused him, threatened him, and said that if he did not pay him the money then he should go and file objections. I note here that the learned Magistrate who took down the notes of the evidence in English has wrongly translated this portion of Jodha's actual statement as implying that he would get him convicted in some case. That he is clearly wrong is borne out by a comparison with the evidence recorded in the vernacular. I am asked on behalf of the prosecution to connect what happened at the village with what happened at Budaun, and to say that the whole thing was a continuation of a single transaction, and the accused is guilty on all the facts taken in conjunction. The statement made by the accused in the village would be a threat held out by him that if some money was not paid to him the crops would be attached by the amin, whereas the promise held out by the accused at Budaun was that if the money was not paid he wTould not