EXTORTION s.

383-389 PC
INTRODUCTION s. 383 whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion. DIFFERENT WITH THEFT Two main different: (1) in extortion accused put a person in fear of injury thereby dishonestly inducing the person so put fear to deliver property. In theft taking w/out consent of the person (2) subject matter in extortion not limited to moveable property, it includes also immoveable property. Whereas in theft only moveable property. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE

INTENTIONALLY PUTTING A PERSON IN FEAR OF INJURY TO HIMSELF OR ANOTHER

DISHONESTLY INDUCING THE PERSON SO PUT IN FEAR TO DELIVER TO ANY PERSON ANY PROPERTY OR VALUABLE SECURITY.

FEAR OF INJURY (1)Injury define in s. 44 as any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind , reputation or property. (2) Illegally is defined in s. 43 as applicable to every thing which is an offence or prohibited by law or which provide gr for civil action. (3) PO must prove that the victim was put in fear of injury and that fear must be present in victims mind at the time of delivery is made. (4) If Acc. forcibly (use force bodily) take property or valuable security he should be charged u/s. using criminal force not u/s. 383. (5) Fear of injury may be caused by OKT to use his influence of power.Meer Abbas Ali v Omed Ali. The victim gave 2 rupees to OKT fear that if he did not give them, he will lose his position in Small Cause Court Judge`s establishment.

IMPLIED THREATS (1) Ill. (a) (b) & (c) to s. 383 deal with express threats of injury. H/ever words uttered may on the face appear innocent but if it can be construed by victim that some injury may be caused unless certain demand are made, it constitute implied threat of injury. Beh Tuck Seng v R The OKT approached the V and said he wanted to collect $10.80 for expences.He further said: everyone here has joined, what about you? The V construed it as threat and feared if he dont pay he will be beaten or his stall will be upset. It was held that even a person of ordinary stability will construe the words as V. Convicted for s. 384. Lee Cho Pet v PP The kdinappers telephone to the V that to pay $20,000 in order to release his son (but actually already killed).Charged u/s 386 Held:The element for this s/386 is putting of a person in fear of death or grevious hurt to him or to other person. In evidence the V was not put in fear of death/gr.hurt at all. There was inducement to pay in order to release the son.No case u/s. 386. Tan Cheng Kooi v PP The OKTs agreed with V to form illicit partnership making of pornoggraphic film. Later V withdrew. The OKTs demanded $50 from V but he only have $30 and went to get the balance. On returnn he came with police detective .He told OKTs that he ddonthave enough money. The faces became black with anger.The court held that this had frightened the V and threat can be implied from this.

THREATS TO EXERCISE LEGAL POWERS

NOT CONSTITUTES INJURY A threat to exercise certain legal powers in pursuant to his office cannot amount to extortion because it does not constitute `injury Vincent Lee v R OKT was charged u/s 384 whereby being a PVR used his power to extract ,money, threatened various people who smoke candu to arrest. Held: The exercise of legal powers h/ever done can never constitute harm.He must be charged with different section. Abu Hassan v PP OKT was charged for attempting extortion u/s. 385.OKT a custom officer told V that unless he pay $500 if not he will repot that V is attempting to take excess money to India as against permitted amount. Held: that the PO must prove putting a person in fear of injury.Injury defined u/s. 44 as harm illegally caused.Exercising legal powers can never constitute harm.

CONSTITUTING INJURY The reasoning for the view that a threat to exercise legal power against a person who has committed an offence, unless a sum of money demanded is paid, constitutes `injury PP V Kang Siew Chong The OKT a police constable , was charged with attempted extortion by putting a courting couple, sitting in close proximity in fear of injury and thereby inducing them to deliver money to him.The man was married and the girl was unmarried.If they dont pay $50 they will be take back to Police Station. Held: A threat to exercise legal power does not constitute harm w/in s. 44. But if the threat is made with an object of exacting payment of money that is not due, it is an abuse of the exercise of that power and that is illegal. OKT found guilty.