ROMESH CHANDRA ARORA versus THE STATE

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 924 · Decided: 06-10-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I95Y 
October 6. 
924 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
ROMESH CHANDRA ARORA 
v. 
THE STATE 
(S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
Criminal Trial-Criminal Intimidation-Conviction by Magi-
strate~Appeal to Court of Session-High Court's power to issue 
notice of enhancement of sentence imposed by Magistrate pending 
appeal-High Court's power to transfer appeal to itself-Indian 
Pena/, Code, z86o (XLV of r86o) ss. 384, 503, 506 and 5u-Code 
of Criminal Procedure, z898 (V of z898), ss. 435, 439 and 526. 
The appellant took indecent photographs of a girl and 
threatened her father, in letters written to him, with publication 
of the photographs unless "hush money" was paid to him. 
He 
was convicted of criminal intimidation under s. 506 Indian Penal 
Cade and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The 
appellant preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge. The High 
Court, not knowing of the filing of the appeal, suo motu called for 
the record of the case and issued a notice of enhancement of 
sentence to the appeUant. Subsequently, on being informed of 
the filing of the appeal, the High Court transferred the appeal to 
itself for hearing. The High Court heard the appeal and the 
notice of enhancement together, dismissed the appeal and 
enhanced the sentence to two years' rigorous imprisonment. The 
appellant contended (i) that on the findings he could be convicted 
only of attempt to commit extortion under s. 384/5n. Indian 
Penal Code and not of criminal intimidation under s. 5o6; (ii) that 
the High Court could not issue the notice of enhancement when 
an appeal was pending before the Sessions Judge; (iii) that the 
order transferring the appeal to the High Court was invalid and 
improper; and (iv) that the procedure adopted deprived him of 
his right to a decision from the Court of appeal and also from the 
High Court in revision. 
Held, that the procedure adopted by the High Court was 
perfectly legal and that the appellant was rightly convicted and 
. sentenced under s. 506, Indian Penal Code. 
The appellant was found to have threatened the father of 
the girl with injury to his reputation and to the reputation of his 
dau~hter with the intent of causing him to do an aet, i.e., to pay 
hush money, which he was not legally bound to do, as a means of 
avoiding the execution of the threat. This was clearly criminal 
intimidation as defined in s. 503 of the Penal Code which was 
punishable under s. 506. 
The appeal which the appellant had filed before the Session"s 
Judge was validly and properly transferred by the High Court to 
itself under s. 526(1)(e)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
The fact that no notice was given to the appellant before the 
' 
f" 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
925 
transfer did not affect its validity as it was open to the High 
Court to act on its own initiative. Once there was a validly 
transferred appeal before the High Court, it was open to the High 
Court to enhance the sentence in exercise of its revisional powers 
under s. 439 Code of Criminal Procedure when it dismissed the 
appeal en merits. The appellant had full opportunity of being 
heard both as to the correctness of his conviction and the pro-
priety of the sentence and he was not prejudiced by the procedure 
adopted by the High Court. 
In re Chunbidya, (1934) L.R. 62 I.A. 36, applied. 
CttrMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 70 of 1957. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 21st 
December, 1956, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit 
Bench) at Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 488-C of 1956 
and Criminal Revision No. 659-C of 1956. 
N. 0. Chatterjee and Vir Sen Sawhney, for the appel-
lant. 
H. R. Khanna, R.H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the 
respondent. 
1959. October 6. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
S. K. DAS J.-This is an appeal on a certificate 
granted by the Punjab High Court under Art. 134(l)(c) 
of the Constitution. 
The facts giving rise to the appeal are somewhat 
sordid and we shall set out such of them only as are 
relevant to it. On December 14, 1954, a person whom 
we shall refer to as X submitted a written report to 
the Superintendent of Police, Delhi City, to the effect 
tha.t one of his daughters was being molested and 
threatened by the appellant and that he had received 
letters of an objectionable nature from him " for the 
purpose of blackmailing and extorting money ". ~ome 
of these letters were shown to the Superintendent of 
Police. The latter

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.