JUDGMENT H.P. Asthana, J. - The applicants have been convicted u/s 379 I.P.C. and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25/- and in default to undergo 15 days' rigorous imprisonment. They have come upon revision against their conviction and sentence. 2. It appears that one Thakur Singh brought a complaint Under Sections 379, 323 and 447 I.P.C. against the applicants on the allegations that he was getting his plots Nos. 325 and 326 situate in Sarawan Parara in the district of Deoria ploughed by four applicants namely Sita Ram, Ram Subhag, Rajas and Bhikhi on 6th November 1952 at about 10 a.m. when the applicants came and stopped them from ploughing the fields and took away bullocks and the ploughs with them. It was further alleged in the complaint that the accused. Faujdar twisted the hand of Ram Subhag and caught and pressed the neck of the complainant Thakur Singh. The bullocks returned in the evening and the ploughs were also subsequently returned on the intervention of certain persons. 3. The accused denied that any such offence was committed as alleged by the complainants. They, however, claimed that the plots in dispute belonged to them. 4. The learned Magistrate after a consideration of the evidence on the record acquitted all the accused of the charge u/s 447 I.P.C. He, however, found the accused Faujdar guilty u/s 379/323 I.P.C. and the rest of the accused guilty only u/s 379 I.P.C. In appeal the Conviction of Faujdar u/s 323 I.P.C. has been set aside but his conviction u/s 379 as well as the conviction of the other applicants under that section have been confirmed. 5. It has been contended on behalf of the applicants that even if the finding of the courts below that the applicants wrongfully took away the bullocks and the plough of the complainant was accepted as correct the offence u/s 379 I.P.C. was not made out as it could not be said that they had committed that act with the intention of committing theft. There is no doubt that in order to constitute an act of theft it is necessary that the property was taken dishonestly out of the possession of the complainant and without his consent. Section 24 defines 'dishonestly' thus: Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing 'dishonestly'. Section 24 defines 'dishonestly' thus: Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing 'dishonestly'. 6. After an examination of this section it is obvious that if the complainant's property was taken out of his possession by a person without his consent with the intention of causing wrongful loss to him or wrongful gain to the person who took away that property the offence of theft will be made out. It is not necessary that in order to constitute this offence the taking of that property should be permanent or with an intention to appropriate it. 7. It appears from the evidence on the record that at the time of the occurrence the complainant's servants were ploughing the field with the bullocks and the plough which were seized from their possession and taken away by the applicants. There can be no doubt that the intention of the applicants was to deprive the complainant and his servants of the use of the bullocks and the plough even though temporarily so that they may not cultivate the disputed plots. There is also no doubt that on account of this wrongful act of the applicants the complainant was put to loss as he was not able to cultivate the disputed plots without the bullocks and the plough. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the offence u/s 379 I.P.C. has been made out against the applicants and they have rightly been convicted. 8. The revision is, therefore, rejected. The fine if not already paid shall be paid by the applicants failing which they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment as provided by the lower court.