JUDGMENT

1. This is an application against a judgment of the Sessions Judge of Nawabshah, who confirmed a conviction of one Tanumal Udhasing, a shopkeeper under Section 385, Penal Code, who was fined Rs. 75 or in default was ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. We think this is one of those cases where Section 508, Penal Code, applies or it does not, and if Section 508, Penal Code, does notapply, we do not think there is any other section of the Penal Code which is appropriate, for it appears to us that the offence, if any, of the accused person consisted in an attempt to enforce payment from the widow of one Kishinchand by threats of divine displeasure if payment was not made. But Section 508, Penal Code, is not sufficiently wide in terms to cover a case where divine displeasure is to be caused by something which is not done as a result of the intervention of the person threatening the divine displeasure. Section 508, Penal Code, provides that the person who is threatened will become or will be rendered by some act of the offender an object of divine displeasure. It does not cover a case where, as it were, divine displeasure is to be attracted independently of the acts of the person using the threats. In such a case divine displeasure follows, as effect follows cause.

2. In this particular case, the widow of Kishinchand who it is alleged was subject of these improper threats did not make a complaint nor did she come even as a witness. It appears that the complaint was filed by her advocate one Atmaram Ghanshamdas. The accused Tanumal was a shopkeeper at Nawabshah, and among other things, he used to take contracts of the boring of tube, wells. He got such a contract from Kishinchand while Kishinchand was alive, and it was for Rs. 120. Tanumal, however, did not satisfactorily complete the work; a written notice was served on him by the complainant, that is, Atmaram, demanding that the work should be done within a given time or would otherwise be completed by some other contractor at Tanumal's cost. The work was so completed and an extra charge of Rs. 11-8-0 was incurred and some material used by Tanumal was returned. Notice again was served on Tanumal asking him to attend and take the balance of eight annas which on the accounts, it was thought, was due to him; he again, however, took no notice and in the meantime Kishinchand died. Finally, an agreement was come to between Atmaram acting on behalf of Kishinchand or Kishinchand's widow and Tanumal whereby it was agreed that the whole business should be concluded by a payment of Rs. 120, for which Tanumal gave a receipt in his own handwriting stating that this Rs. 120 was in full and final'settlement. One would have thought then that this simple matter would have been concluded. But on 27th March Tanumal wrote a postcard from Nawabshah to the widow of Kishinchand which is made the basis of the present prosecution and his conviction against which he has come in revision. He made a claim for another Rs. 10 in respect of this same tube-well. He wrote in the postcard that he had received this Rs. 120; he said, however, that the balance of Rs. 10 was due to him, and that if it was not paid through Court, it would be recovered from Mr. Kishinchand in the next world. This postcard also contained certain moral exhortations to the lady to pay her husband's debt. In due course it came into the hands of Atmaram, and so this complaint was filed. The complaint was for offences under Sections 384, 511 and 420, Penal Code.

3. It is not disputed that Tanumal gave a receipt in full settlement for Rs. 120; but it is contended before us, as it was contended before the lower Courts, that Rs. 10 was still owing and that even if Tanumal did, as it were, invoke the threat of divine displeasure, this is not an offence which falls under Section 385, Penal Code, at all. The offences under Section 385, Penal Code, were limited to cases where the cause of the injury to be done was some earthl