Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1902 DIGILAW 173 (CAL)

Jowahir Pattak v. Parbhoo Ahir

1902-06-10

body1902
JUDGMENT Stevens and Henderson, JJ. - The Petitioner has been convicted u/s 506 of the Indian Penal Code of the offence of criminal intimidation towards the complainant. 2. This Rule was granted to show cause why the conviction should not he set aside, on the ground that on the face of the judgment there was reason to doubt whether the conviction was warranted by law. 3. Briefly stated, the facts appear to be as follows : The Petitioner and another desired the complainant, who is found to have been at one time a person of bad livelihood, to sell them a cow and on his refusing to do so, they said that they would ruin him with cases. The threat was afterwards followed by a report and a petition to the Magistrate against the complainant charging him with bad livelihood. The report and the petition were not made by the present Petitioner himself; but they have been connected by the Magistrate who tried this case with the threats in respect of which the Petitioner has been convicted. 4. It seems to us that the Rule must be made absolute. According to the definition of criminal intimidation in Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code there must be a threat to another person of injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested. The word "injury" is defined again in Section 44 as denoting any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property. No doubt if the threat had been to ruin the complainant by fake cases, the offece of criminal intimidation would have been committed; but the threat was to ruin him by "cases," and it cannot be assumed that by "cases" were meant false cases. If the cases were not false, the mere fact that they were instituted for the purpose of persecuting the complainant would not bring them within the definition of the term "injury," because the harm, although caused from an improper motive, would not be caused illegally. 5. The Rule is therefore made absolute, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine, if paid, must be refunded.