Chang Min Tat J:

This is an appeal against their conviction by the learned Magistrate on a charge of extortion.

The charge read as follows:-

That you jointly on 22 April 1970 at about 8.30 p.m. at the Capitol Bar, at Maxwell Road, in the District of Georgetown, in the State of Penang, attempted to put one Chor Swee Choo (m) in fear of injury in order to the committing of extortion and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under S 385 of the Penal Code."

The brief facts of the case, so far as they were undisputed were these: The appellants had mooted the idea of forming an illicit partnership for the production of pornographic films and had invited the complainant to join in with them. The complainant had toyed with the idea and on one occasion had gone to Alor Star where the appellants resided and which was proposed to be the site of their studio in connection with this proposal. For his taxi-fare back, he was paid $5 by the appellants. Next the appellants came to Penang and called on the complainant at his house. The meeting continued at the Capitol Cinema Bar. At this meeting, whether it was at the house or at the bar, it is not very clear, the complainant finally indicated he would not be participating.

Then, according to the complainant, the first accused demanded $500 but later agreed to reduce the demand to $50. This demand was purportedly for expenses incurred in coming from Kedah. Also, according to the complainant, the first, appellant did not appear happy, and he said he would not befriend the complainant anymore. The complainant alleged he then became frightened because he took this to mean a threat.

Complainant had only $30 with him and he said he would go home to fetch the $50 but on his way home, he stopped at the police headquarters where he lodged a report to a Chinese police detective. At the suggestion of the police detective, he returned to the bar. There he told the appellants that he could not get the money, at which in the words of the complainant the appellants were displeased and their faces became black with anger. He was frightened. The appellants then produced a booklet for him to sign. Before he could sign it, the four detectives amongst whom were the Chinese detective to whom he had made the report and a Malay detective whom he had met with the Chinese detective, pounced on the appellants and arrested them.

The complaint would appear to be a verbal one. The evidence as to this came from the Malay detective who explained that he thought the matter too urgent to reduce or have the information reduced into writing. No first information report in writing was thus produced at the trial.

The first ground of complaint against the conviction was that the charge was bad in law, specifically in that the charge lacked essential particulars and insofar as the second appellant was concerned, in that the failure to invoke s. 34 of the Penal Code was a fatal omission as he, the second appellant, could not be made responsible for the action of the first appellant.

On this first point of lack of particulars, there is obviously no indication in the charge of the type or nature of the injury said to be threatened. The form of a charge under s. 384 in Ratanlal's Law of Crimes 20th Edn. at p. 991 recommends a description of the injury. The question, of course, is always whether a specific injury was threatened, in which case one would naturally expect the prosecution to describe the threat that was made or whether a general threat of injury was made without anything specific being mentioned. In the latter case, the prosecution could not conceivably be able to describe the injury threatened. In this connection. regard must, I think, be paid to the predilection of the peoples in the East of never calling a spade a spade. But can the offence of extortion never be committed, if the accused, for instance, asked for a loan in words that never went beyond what would normally be for a loan but in su