JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This is a complainant's appeal against an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, (Judicial), Balasore, acquitting the Respondents of a charge u/s 379, Indian Penal Code, for having removed the paddy crop from the middle portion of plot No. 329. 2. According to the prosecution case this plot of land comprising an area of A. 9.47 decimals of land has been jointly recorded in the name of Durgacharan Padhan and Murali Padhan. According to the complainant, however, one-third in the middle portion of the plot was owned and possessed by Durgacharan. After the death of Durga Charan, the complainant had purchased this one-third share of the disputed land comprising an area of 19 decimals by sale-deed (ext. I) from Khirodmani, widow of Durgacharan on 31-5-1939. After the said purchase the other cosharer Murali removed the paddy crop from the said land. So the complainant filed Title Suit No. 502/40 in the Court of the Munsif of Balasore and obtained a declaration of title in his favour. He also obtained delivery of possession of his one-third property through Civil Court, (Vide ext 6 the writ of delivery of possession) in 1944, as was all along in possession thereafter. On 19-3-1959, the accused-Respondents purchased the whole of the plot comprising an area of A. 0.57 decimals from Jamuna, the widow of Murali, under sale-deed ext. A and on the strength of that purchase, they caught and carried away the paddy, though the complainant had been in peaceful possession of his 1/3rd share for the last so many years. 3. Both sides adduced evidence in support of their possession. The learned Magistrate after examining the evidence of both sides came to a finding that the complainant had failed to prove his possession, and as proof of possession was one of the essential ingredients in a case u/s 379, Indian Penal Code he acquitted the accused persons. 4. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the complainant-Appellant, challenged the correctness of the finding and placed the evidence before me. On a perusal of the evidence, I am inclined to think that the findings of the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be absolutely unreasonable. After the Civil Court decree and even after the delivery of possession, the complainant had not taken any steps to mutate his name. On a perusal of the evidence, I am inclined to think that the findings of the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be absolutely unreasonable. After the Civil Court decree and even after the delivery of possession, the complainant had not taken any steps to mutate his name. He had not produced any rent-receipts in support of payment of rent in respect of the disputed land. No witness to delivery of possession has been examined though Banamali Ghadei one of such witnesses is living. Evidence regarding possession has been given from both sides. The defence examined Brundaban Padhan, one of the co-sharers according to whom there is no ridge in plot No. 329 to demarcate the middle portion of that plot and that accused Kartik was in possession of the disputed land for the last three years including the year in dispute. In view of such a position, it cannot be said that the finding of possession against the complainant can in any sense be called unreasonable. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the accused Respondents contended that in any case the claim of the accused was based upon a registered sale-deed from Jamuna the widow of Murali one of the admitted co-owners and that such a claim is a bonafide one and the accused in any case, is entitled to an acquittal. According to him, his vendor was all along in possession in spite of the Civil Court decree and was not aware of any delivery of possession by the Civil Court in the year 1944 and after the said decree the vendors of the accused could claim adverse possession in respect of that portion of the land claimed by the complainant. It is, however, not the duty of the criminal court to examine the complicated question of title. In a trial u/s 379, Indian Penal Code it is well-settled that a bonafide claim of right is always a good defence. In such cases, the Courts have to examine whether the removal by the accused was under a colour of right or in other words under a bonafide claim of right or the claim was merely a pretence. If it was a case of bonafide claim of right, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. This appears to be the settled view of the law. In a case reported in Suvvari Sanyasi Apparao and Another Vs. If it was a case of bonafide claim of right, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. This appears to be the settled view of the law. In a case reported in Suvvari Sanyasi Apparao and Another Vs. Boddepalli Lakshminarayana and Another, their Lordships held that it is a settled law that where a bonafide claim of right exists it can be a good defence in a prosecution for theft. An Act does not amount to theft unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance or colour of a right. It cannot be disputed that the claim of the accused is based upon a sale-deed from one of the admitted co-owners. In such a situation it cannot be held that the claim was not a bonafide one but was merely a pretence. Considered from any point of view, the learned Magistrate was justified in acquitting the accused-Respondents. There is thus no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed