Jagat Narain, J.—This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Keshri Chand respondent of a charge under sec. 394/ I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case was that the father of one Surjia had borrowed Rs. 100/-from Keshri Chand, which he was not paying back, and in order to coerce him to pay off the debt Keshri Chand seized a camel belonging to the debtor from the possession of his son Surjia after giving him two slaps. The defence of Keshri Chand was that he had entered into an agreement with his debtor for the purchase of the camel, and had taken it with his consent in pursuance of that agreement. The learned Magistrate did not believe that Keshri Chand slapped Surjia, as this allegation was not supported by one of the prosecution witnesses, Narain. He did not expressly say whether he disbelieved the defence allegation, but from his judgment it appears that he was satisfied that the camel was seized by Keshri Chand from the possession of Surjia in order to compel repayment of the debt. He, however, was of the opinion that as Keshri Chand had no dishonest intention in doing so, he did not commit any offence. 3. We have perused the evidence on record, and we are satisfied that there is no truth in the defence allegation that any agreement for the sale of the camel had taken place or that the camel was handed over by the debtor willingly. This allegation was not put even to the first prosecution witness Surjia in cross-examination. The finding of fact arrived at by the learned Magistrate is correct, in our opinion, namely, that the camel was seized by Keshri Chand in order to compel repayment of the debt. 4. The act of Keshri Chand falls within the definition of theft as given in sec. 378 of the Indian Penal Code. This view was taken in Queen-Empress vs. Sri Churn Chungo (1) and Queen-Empress vs. Agha Mohammad Yusuf (2). These cases have been followed subsequently in Bakhtawar vs. King-Emperor (3) and Emperor vs. Ganpat Krishnaji Parit (4). On behalf of the respondent reliance was placed on Daulat Shaw vs. Emperor (5). We are of the opinion that the view taken in Queen-Empress vs. Agha Mohammed Yusuf and Queen-Empress vs. Shri Churn Chungo (1) is correct. 5. These cases have been followed subsequently in Bakhtawar vs. King-Emperor (3) and Emperor vs. Ganpat Krishnaji Parit (4). On behalf of the respondent reliance was placed on Daulat Shaw vs. Emperor (5). We are of the opinion that the view taken in Queen-Empress vs. Agha Mohammed Yusuf and Queen-Empress vs. Shri Churn Chungo (1) is correct. 5. We accordingly set aside the acquittal of Keshri Chand, and convict him under sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code. We sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-. In default, he shall undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Two months time is allowed to the respondent for paying the fine, which should be deposited with the trial court.