A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Romesh Chandra Arora v. The State, 1960 SCR (1) 924, dealt with a case involving criminal intimidation through threats of reputation damage to extract money, otherwise known as blackmail. The appellant had taken indecent photographs of a girl and threatened her father to pay hush money or face the public release of those photos. The case turned on whether such actions amounted to criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, or whether it was merely an attempt to extort money under Section 384/511 IPC. Additionally, it addressed the validity of the High Court’s suo motu issuance of notice for enhancement of sentence, even while an appeal was pending before the Sessions Judge, and whether the subsequent transfer of appeal to the High Court without prior notice to the accused was valid. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s actions and ruled that the process adopted was legally sound and not prejudicial. The conviction under Section 506 IPC was sustained, and the enhancement of sentence was validated under revisional jurisdiction. The case remains a significant precedent on criminal procedure, appellate powers, and criminal intimidation jurisprudence in India.

Keywords: Criminal intimidation, Section 506 IPC, Enhancement of sentence, Revisional jurisdiction, Blackmail, Appeal transfer, Section 439 CrPC.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Romesh Chandra Arora v. The State

ii) Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1957

iii) Judgement Date
October 6, 1959

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
S.K. Das J., A.K. Sarkar J., and M. Hidayatullah J.

vi) Author
S.K. Das J.

vii) Citation
1960 SCR (1) 924

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 503 and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

• Section 384 read with Section 511 IPC

• Sections 435, 439, and 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

• Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any)
None explicitly overruled.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Constitutional Law (Appellate Jurisdiction)

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case presents an intersection between criminal procedure and substantive criminal law, particularly in cases involving extortion, blackmail, and procedural remedies. Romesh Chandra Arora was found guilty of taking indecent photographs of a girl and threatening her father to pay money to prevent their publication. Upon conviction by a Magistrate and a sentence of one-year rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 IPC, Arora appealed to the Sessions Court. Meanwhile, the High Court, unaware of this appeal, initiated suo motu revision proceedings and issued notice of enhancement. Upon learning about the pending appeal, it transferred the appeal to itself under Section 526 CrPC and ultimately dismissed the appeal while enhancing the sentence to two years. The key legal questions emerged regarding the validity of conviction under Section 506 IPC versus attempt to extort, and the legality of High Court’s suo motu powers and appeal transfer.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

In December 1954, a person referred to as “X” lodged a report with the Delhi Police alleging that his daughter was being harassed by Romesh Chandra Arora. X produced letters in which Arora threatened to publicize nude photographs of the girl unless hush money was paid. Investigation revealed Arora had not only taken indecent photographs but also mailed sample images to X. One of the letters contained a sample image, and its explicit threat clearly demonstrated the intent to blackmail. Upon investigation under Section 506 IPC, Arora was convicted by a Magistrate and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant challenged the conviction before the Sessions Judge. Meanwhile, the High Court, acting suo motu based on newspaper reports, issued notice for enhancement of sentence under Sections 435 and 439 CrPC. Upon discovering the pending appeal, the High Court transferred the appeal to itself under Section 526(1)(e)(iii) and eventually heard both the appeal and the notice together, enhancing the sentence to two years. This raised concerns about jurisdiction, propriety, procedural fairness, and the correct legal classification of the offence.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the act of threatening to release indecent photographs with intent to obtain money constitutes criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC or attempt to extort under Section 384/511 IPC?

ii. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue notice of enhancement under Section 439 CrPC when an appeal was pending before the Sessions Judge?

iii. Whether the transfer of the appeal from the Sessions Judge to the High Court under Section 526 CrPC without notice to the appellant was valid?

iv. Whether the adopted procedure deprived the appellant of appellate and revisional remedies?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for the Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the acts did not amount to criminal intimidation, but rather constituted an attempt to commit extortion, punishable under Section 384 read with Section 511 IPC. Since no money was actually paid, the completed offence of extortion was not established.

ii. The appellant’s counsel argued that once an appeal had been filed before the Sessions Judge, the High Court could not have initiated suo motu revision under Section 439 CrPC or called for records under Section 435 CrPC.

iii. It was contended that the transfer of appeal under Section 526 CrPC without notice to the appellant was procedurally flawed and deprived the appellant of a fair hearing at the Sessions Court.

iv. It was also argued that the procedure adopted prejudiced the appellant, who was denied sequential appellate and revisional scrutiny as permitted under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that the offence clearly fell within the ambit of criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 IPC, punishable under Section 506 IPC. The accused threatened harm to reputation to coerce X into parting with money.

ii. It was argued that the intent behind the threats was to cause X to perform an act he was not legally bound to do, i.e., pay money, which fulfilled the second part of the Section 503 IPC definition.

iii. The State further contended that the High Court had power to transfer the appeal under Section 526(1)(e)(iii) CrPC, especially considering the public interest and gravity of the crime.

iv. As per the prosecution, the notice of enhancement was valid, and the appellant was given full opportunity to be heard on the merits of both conviction and sentence.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 503 IPC: Definition of criminal intimidation
ii. Section 506 IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation
iii. Section 384 IPC: Punishment for extortion
iv. Section 511 IPC: Punishment for attempting to commit offences
v. Section 435 CrPC, 1898: Power of superior courts to call for records
vi. Section 439 CrPC, 1898: High Court’s revisional jurisdiction
vii. Section 526(1)(e)(iii) CrPC, 1898: Power to transfer appeal to High Court
viii. Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India: Certificate for appeal to Supreme Court

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The Supreme Court held that threatening to publish indecent photos to compel someone to pay money constitutes criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC and is punishable under Section 506 IPC. The intent was to compel the victim to do something he was not legally obliged to do—pay hush money—which satisfied the requirements under the second part of Section 503.

ii. The Court clarified that although the threats also caused alarm, the dominant intent was coercion, making the invocation of Section 506 IPC valid.

iii. The Court also upheld that suo motu revision under Section 439 CrPC was maintainable even if an appeal was pending, provided the appeal was later transferred to the High Court, consolidating jurisdiction under both appellate and revisional heads.

iv. The transfer under Section 526 CrPC was proper, and the lack of prior notice was immaterial as the High Court had discretion to act suo motu, and the appellant was later granted full opportunity to be heard.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i. The Court cautioned against routine departure from procedural hierarchy, stating that High Courts should normally wait for lower appellate courts to dispose of cases before invoking revision, unless exceptional circumstances justify immediate intervention.

c. GUIDELINES 

• High Courts can exercise suo motu revisional powers even if unaware of a pending appeal.

• If the appeal is later transferred to the High Court, revisional and appellate powers can be exercised together.

• Courts must ensure procedural fairness, but failure to issue a transfer notice alone does not invalidate the process if the accused receives a full hearing.

• When intent is to force unlawful compliance through threat, Section 503 IPC applies even if no property changes hands.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This case affirms the wide revisional powers of the High Court, especially in serious crimes with public interest implications. The Supreme Court adopted a purposive interpretation of criminal intimidation, choosing to focus on the coercive intent and effect of threats, rather than mere formal classification under extortion. Procedurally, it reinforced the validity of suo motu actions and clarified that lack of notice in transfer does not amount to prejudice if subsequent proceedings ensure fairness. The judgment also reflects judicial recognition of emerging blackmail threats, especially involving women’s privacy, which resonates with contemporary concerns of data and sexual image abuse. It remains a cornerstone in Indian criminal jurisprudence on intimidation and appellate powers.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
[1] In re Chunbidya, (1934) L.R. 62 I.A. 36
[2] Kishan Singh v. The King Emperor, (1938) L.R. 65 I.A. 390
[3] Ambika Thakur v. Emperor, AIR 1939 Pat 611

b. Important Statutes Referred
[4] Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 503, 506, 384, 511
[5] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 435, 439, 526
[6] Constitution of India, Article 134(1)(c)