R.N. Dutta, J.
1. This Rule is directed against an order of discharge passed by a Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, under Section 253(r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The petitioner is a bullion merchant at 163 Harrison Road, Calcutta. The opposite party was an employee under him. The opposite party left the service of the petitioner on January 31. 1962. From February 7. 1962 onwards the opposite party started threatening the petitioner that unless the opposite party was paid Rs. 7000/- by way of compensation he would make some fictitious' entries in the books of accounts which he had taken away with him, produce them before the sales tax and income-tax authorities and cause irreparable injury to the petitioner and his business. It was alleged that on April 7, 1962, the opposite party repeated the threats to one Asoke Roy Choudhury, an employee of the petitioner, asking him to communicate the threats to the petitioner. These threats were communicated by Asoke Roy Choudhury to the petitioner and the petitioner filed a petition of complaint against the opposite party on April 10. 1962. The opposite party was summoned under Section 506, Indian Penal Code. Evidence was led but the opposite party has been discharged under Section 253(I) of The Code.
3. Mr. Dutta argues that the opposite party has been discharged on an interpretation of Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code which cannot be accepted as correct. The learned Magistrate has assumed the facts alleged as true but has discharged the opposite party saying that the facts do not constitute as offence as defined under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that on April 7. 1962, the opposite party did not directly threaten the petitioner with any injury to his person, reputation or property but threatened Asoke Roy Choudhury, a person interested in the petitioner, with injury to his business. The learned Magistrate seems to have thought that the treat must be a direct threat in the sense that unless the threat is uttered in the presence of the petitioner it cannot be said that the opposite party threatened the petitioner. The learned Magistrate was wrong in this interpretation. The opposite party might have threatened the petitioner even though the treat was not uttered in his presence. If the threat was uttered in the presence of some loerson with a view to be communicated to the 'person threatened it must be said that the person who uttered the threat threatened the person for whom the threat was meant. Here it appears that the opposite party repeated the threat before Asoke Roy Choudhury asking him to communicate the same to the petitioner. This is threatening the petitioner and not threatening Asoke Roy Choudhury. If the facts are true, the case comes within the words, 'whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property.
4. Furthermore, even if it be said that the threat was to Asoke Roy Choudhury, the threat was to cause injury to the business of the petitioner by making certain fictitious entries in the account books and producing them before the sale tax or the income-tax authorities. The threat has direct reference to injury to the property of the petitioner but it has reference to injury to the reputation of the petitioner also as by the threat the good name of the business is sought to be injured and thereby the reputation of the petitioner who is a partner of the business is also sought to be injured. Thus even if it be said that it was a threat to Asoke Roy Choudhury the case comes under the words, 'whoever the tens another with any injury to the reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested'. So, in any view of the matter, if the facts are true, the interpretation made by the learned Magistrate cannot be accepted as correct.
5. Mr. Das Gupta submits that the opposite party has been acquitted in the case in which the petitioner made a complaint that the opposite party had dishonestly removed his account books. This fact may be relevant at the time of trial of this case but this has nothing to do with the interpretation of Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. This Rule is, in the circumstances, made absolute. The order of discharge of the opposite party is set aside and the case sent back for further enquiry.