Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Sharad Balkrushna Deotale, a journalist, challenging his conviction under Sections 384 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for extortion. The complainant, Sonba Bhaisare, owned land that he converted to non-agricultural use and sold plots to various people. The accused started meeting the complainant from 1999, claiming that the land was Bhoodan land and the conversion was illegal. He threatened to publish articles in newspapers and file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the complainant, and also threatened to pressurize the Collector to demolish houses built on the plots. On 27 July 2000, the accused demanded Rs. 50,000 from the complainant to stop these activities. The complainant initially refused but later paid the money under duress. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 384 IPC and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, with a default sentence of six months simple imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 385 IPC but no separate sentence was awarded. The appeal before the Sessions Court was dismissed. The High Court, in revision, examined the evidence and found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the accused's threat to publish and cause harm to the complainant's reputation and property constituted extortion. The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the revision application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Extortion - Sections 384, 385 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Conviction upheld - The accused, a journalist, demanded Rs. 50,000 from the complainant to stop publishing articles and filing PIL regarding alleged illegal conversion of Bhoodan land - The court held that the threat to publish and cause harm to the complainant's reputation and property amounted to extortion - The evidence of witnesses and contemporaneous documents supported the prosecution case - The conviction and sentence were confirmed (Paras 1-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Sections 384 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code for demanding money to stop publishing articles about illegal land conversion is sustainable.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence under Sections 384 and 385 IPC are upheld.
Law Points
- Extortion
- Section 384 IPC
- Section 385 IPC
- Criminal intimidation
- Journalist's right to publish
- Mens rea
- Demand of money
- Threat to publish
- Conviction upheld
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 146
Criminal Revision Application (REVN) No. 180 of 2011
Shri C.B. Dharmadhikari for applicant, Shri I.J. Damle, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State, Shri Mahesh Rai for complainant/intervenor
Sharad Balkrushna Deotale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision against conviction for extortion under Sections 384 and 385 IPC.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
The applicant was convicted for demanding Rs. 50,000 from the complainant to stop publishing articles and filing PIL regarding alleged illegal land conversion.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the applicant under Section 384 IPC and sentenced him to three years RI and fine of Rs. 1,000, with default sentence. He was also convicted under Section 385 IPC but no separate sentence. The appeal before the Sessions Court was dismissed.
Issues
Whether the demand of money by the accused to stop publishing articles and filing PIL amounts to extortion under Section 384 IPC?
Whether the conviction under Section 385 IPC is sustainable?
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that he was a journalist and had a right to publish articles and file PIL; the demand was not extortion.
The prosecution contended that the accused threatened to cause harm to the complainant's reputation and property, and the demand of money was to desist from such acts, constituting extortion.
Ratio Decidendi
The threat to publish articles and file PIL, coupled with the demand of money to stop such actions, amounts to extortion under Section 384 IPC. The evidence of witnesses and contemporaneous documents proved the demand and receipt of money.
Judgment Excerpts
The accused demanded Rs.50,000/- from Sonba saying that he would stop his activities if the money would be paid to him.
The present revision is against the judgment of conviction dated 30.08.2010 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha in Criminal Case No. 573 of 2000 thereby convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer RI for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, further to suffer SI for six months.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the applicant on 30.08.2010. The appeal (Regular Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2010) was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 29.11.2011. The present revision was filed against the appellate judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 384, 385
