What is the difference between theft and extortion?

 The key differences between theft and extortion lie in their methods, consent mechanisms, and the nature of property involved. Here's a comprehensive comparison based on the provisions of both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS):

Definitions

Print Page

Whether Offence Of Extortion is Made Out In Absence Of Delivery Of Property?

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from perusal of the FIR it is nowhere reflected that on extortion made by the petitioner, complainant/respondent No.5 has delivered any valuable property to the petitioner, as such, he has not committed offence under Section 384 of IPC. Even from perusal of the final report, it is clear that the documents submitted by the investigating agency regarding statements of the witnesses, none of the witnesses has stated that on extortion made by the

petitioner by demanding Rs.25,00,000/- from respondent No.5. The respondent No. 5 has given Rs.25,00,000/- to the petitioner, as such, there is no ingredient of offence under Section 384 of IPC is made out.

16) It would be evident from the reading of Section 383 of the IPC that the

ingredients of 'extortion' are; (i) the accused must put any person in fear of

injury to that person or any other person; (ii) the putting of a person in such

fear must be intentional; (iii) the accused must thereby induce the person

so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or

anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security;

(iv) such inducement must be done dishonestly. The terms 'dishonestly',

'illegally' and 'injury' used in "Section 383 of the IPC and in " Sections 24, 43

and 44 of the IPC respectively. On a careful consideration of the above

definitions and ingredients what appears is that if someone puts the others

intentionally in fear to any injury and thereby, dishonestly induces that

person who has been put into fear to deliver to the person any property or

valuable security or anything signed or sealed or which may be converted

into valuable security shall be liable to be punished for 'extortion'.

17). Thus, what is necessary for constituting an offence of 'extortion' is that

the prosecution must prove that on account of being put in fear of injury,

the victim has voluntarily delivered any particular property to the man

putting him into fear. If there was no delivery of property, then the most

important ingredient for constituting the offence of 'extortion' would not be

available. Further, if a person voluntarily delivers any property without there

being any fear of injury, an offence of 'extortion' cannot be said to have been committed.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPCR No. 133 of 2017

Shatrughan Singh Sahu  Vs  State of Chhattisgarh 

Pronounced on 07-09-2021

Print Page