JUDGMENT
Prinsep, J.
1. The petitioner a Sub-Inspector of Police, has been convicted offences under Sections 342 and 384 of the Penal Code, that is of wrongfully confining Jagat Chunder Chuckerbutty, and of extorting from him Rs. 200 order a threat that he would not release Jagat Chunder Chuckerbutty unless the money were paid. It is found that this money was paid of account by Panchu Behari Saha, a money lender, who lent Jagat (sic) the money for this purpose. In hearing this appeal the Sessions'(sic) held that Panchu was not an accomplice, and he considered his evidence accordingly. A rule has been granted to consider this matter, because if (sic) is an accomplice, the evidence has not been properly considered on the a(sic) It is contended before us that the money was an illegal gratification(sic) therefore, the offence, if any, committed is under Section 213 of the Penal (sic) rather than extortion under Section 384. In one sense the offence may be so regard and in that case Panchu might be regarded as an accomplice, but (sic) evidence we think that it is sufficiently shown that the money was(sic) voluntarily given, and it was not given in consideration of the Sub-Inspector not proceeding against Jagat Chunder for the purpose of bringing him to(sic) punishment. It was given to obtain his release from police custody in (sic) he was detained on no reasonable or sufficient ground, and it was (sic) because the Sub-Inspector refused to release him, as he was bound to do, (sic) he were paid that money. A person paying such money under such (sic) stances cannot be regarded as an accomplice of the Sub-Inspector in(sic) misconduct. There are, therefore, no sufficient grounds for holding that(sic) Sessions Judge on appeal has not properly dealt with the evidence of (sic) as not that of an accomplice.
2. The rule is discharged.
