P L D 1957 Dacca 279 (PLP)

BADIUZZAMAN, J.‑--In this case a Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Mymensingh to show cause why the conviction and sentence complained of should not be set aside. Mr. R. C. Talukdar appears in support of the Rule, but none appears to oppose it. The Rule was issued only on ground No.

1. The ground reads: "For that having regard to the allegations of the prosecu tion and the finding of the Court that the complainant was wrongfully confined by the petitioners and they attempted to extort from him disclosing an offence under section 384 of the P. P. C., which is a more serious offence than section 342 of the P. P. C., the conviction of the petitioners under section 342, P. P. C., cannot be sustained." Facts alleged are: The complainant Montajuddin married Fuljannessa, daughter of the petitioner No.1 Himatullah and neice of the petitioner No. 2 Neamutullah. There was Kabinnama for the marriage and one of the conditions was that the complainant would live in the house of the petitioners as domesticated son‑in‑law and his educational expenses would be borne by his father‑in‑law. Shortly after the marriage the complainant demanded some money to purchase books and clothes, but his further‑in‑law sternly turned down the demand. This gave rise to tension between the father‑in‑law and the son‑in‑law which reached its climax on the night of the 6th June 1952, when the petitioners attempted to extort divorce from the complainant by keeping him wrongly confined in one of their huts. The complainant raised alarm and the attempt was baffled on account of timely arrival of the neighbours. On these facts the petitioners were tried on a charge under section 342 and convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 75 each, in default rigorous imprisonment for two months each. Their appeal to the Sessions Judge was dismissed by Mr. A. Aziz, Additional Sessions Judge, Mymensingh, on 28th November 1953. Thereafter they approached this Court in its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction and obtained the present Rule. Mr. Talukdar argues that when the initial complaint against the petitioners disclosed an offence under section 384 of the P. P. C., the conviction under section 342 cannot be sustained. In support of this contention, he has relied on the decision in the case of Torabali Mondal and others v. Jafarud din Mondal (6 D L R 32), wherein it was held as follows: "Where the initial complaint and charge against the accused disclosed an offence under section 379 of the Penal Code, his conviction under section 427 cannot be maintained." Law laid down in that case is not disputed but what is questioned is its applicability to the present case. In that case the initial complaint disclosed an offence exclusively under section 379 but the accused was convicted under section

427. Here, however, the initial complaint does not disclose any offence under section

384. As soon as Mr. Talukdar has realized the untenability of his argument, he quickly swings round and argues that assuming that the initial complaint does not establish an offence under section 384 but merely discloses an attempt to commit such offence, even in that case too the conviction under section 342 must fail, being less grave than an offence punishable under section 384/511, P. P. C. This argument also, if tested, in the light of the facts set out in the petition of complaint will fizzle out. Attempt is the direct movement towards the commission after the preparation has been made, but mere wrongful confinement unattended by any overt acts signifying an intention to commit extortion cannot come up higher than the stage of preparation. An attempt to commit a crime must be something more than mere prepara tion. Acts remotely leading towards the commission of the offence are not to be considered as attempt to commit it. Here in the present case the initial complaint does not indicate that the appellants by putting the complaint in fear of any injury dishonestly attempted to induce the complainant to sign or affix his seal to blank paper and deliver the paper to the appellant nor does it even show that the appellant held out a paper and pen to the complainant and coerced him to sign it. In the absence of any such materials it cannot be said that the initial complaint disclosed an offence punishable under section 384/511. In this view the Rule is discharged and conviction and sentence are maintained. K. B, A. Rule discharged.