Murray-Aynsley CJ:

In this case the appellant was charged and convicted under s. 384 of the Penal Code. It appears that the appellant was what is known as a volunteer special constable and was duly vested with all the powers and privileges of a "Police Officer". It also appears that in spite of this he had never performed any duties as such.It is also alleged that armed with these powers he had to extract money, threatened various persons who were smoking chandu with arrest.

The offence of extortion is defined in s. 383 of the Penal Code. It will be seen that an essential part of the offence is putting a person in fear of "injury". In turn "injury" is defined in s. 44 of the same code. There "injury" is harm illegally caused.It appears to me to follow from this that the exercise of legal powers however done can never constitute harm.

It is to be regretted that the use of the word "extortion" in this connection, which is very different from the technical use in English law and also from the popular use, has led to confusion.It will be seen that the authorities cited in the commentary both in Gour and Ratanlal are mostly English cases and they are examples of offence very different from that defined in the section.If the appellant is guilty of an offence, it is not that of which he has been convicted.

The appeal must be allowed and the conviction and the consequential order must be quashed.

Appeal Allowed.