1. The offences of which the accused has been found guilty are wrongful restraint, hurt, and putting a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion. A single sentence of fine has been imposed for the three offences combined. The convictions for the first and the last of these offences, viz., those under Sections 341 and 385, Indian Penal Code, will not stand because it has not been found that any physical restraint was put on the person of P. W. No. 1. If he remained for the night in Lingagiri because the accused, a proprietor of that place, told him to stay, there was no offence within Section 341. Again the threat that the accused is alleged to have used towards the cooly, who was discovered transporting Arrack from the Nizam's Dominions into British Territory, was to the effect that he would report him to British Police. For the purpose of Section 385 it is necessary that the accused should have put some person in fear of injury in order to extort some property from him. The definition of 'injury' in Section 44, Indian Penal Code, shows that it embraces only such harm to body, mind, reputation or property as may be caused illegal in a landed proprietor asking the Police to investigate a suspected case of smuggling liquor. It would, on the contrary, be his duty to give information. The offence of hurt is a non-cognisable one. It consisted here in the accused giving the cooly a stroke on his hands with his walking stick when he persisted in asking permission to be allowed to go on his way. There was apparently no complaint by the P. W. No. 1 to the Magistrate, and, in all probability, the charge of hurt would never have come into Court if the Police had not taken up the other charges. I think the accused has been prejudiced by being tried for this offence along with the other cognisable offences, as the evidence has not been considered separately.
2. I set aside the conviction and direct the fine to be refunded.