JUDGMENT : Knox, J. :— This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Jhansi, convicting the applicant, under section 379 of the Penal Code, 1860. The ground on which I am asked to interfere is, that on the facts found, no offence has been established against the applicant. The applicant was convicted of theft. An essential ingredient of theft is the taking of the property out of the owner's possession and without the owner's consent. The learned Judge finds that at the time the stolen property was taken with the consent of the owner, but as that consent was given under a misconception of fact, it amounted to no consent at all. 2. The misconception of fact referred to is that the owner gave, up the property upon the understanding that a debt was due from him to the applicant; subsequently he appears to have found out that the debt was what is known in law as a “time-barred” debt. Subsequent knowledge will not change the fact that at the time when consent was given, it was a full and unqualified consent; no fraud is found, and I have no right to import an element of fraud into the transaction or to hold that because the debtor has since ascertained that he was not legally bound to pay, he would have refused to satisfy what was an undisputed debt. I find that consent was given. No offence, therefore, was committed under section 379 of the Penal Code, 1860. I reverse the finding, find Musammat Piari Dulaiya not guilty of the offence of which she was charged, and set aside the sentence.