D. S. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision by Mohan to challenge the concurrent finding of the lower courts, convicting him of an offence punishable Under Section 215 I. P. C. and awarding him the sentence of one years R. I. ( 2 ) THE concurrent finding of fact as recorded by the lower courts is not improper and can foe accepted as far as the present Revision is concerned. The finding was challenged before me on the ground that there existed enmity between Ganga Singh, complainant, and Mohan, applicant, suggesting thereby that Mohan could not think of demanding money for the return of the bullock. One can think of making money out of his enemies also. The prosecution case cannot, therefore, be disbelieved simply because relations between the complainant and the applicant were not cordial. ( 3 ) THE established facts of the case are that on the night of the 5/6th of July, 1962, the bullock of ganga Singh strayed from his house. He lodged a report of the loss of the bullock at P. S. Kotwali, Etah, on 6-7-1962 at 10 A. M. , wherein he suspected Mohan and also Lala Ram for committing theft of the bullock. The same day in the evening Mohan, applicant, told Ganga singh that the bullock could be handed over to him if he agreed to pay Rs. 180/. Ganga Singh arranged for the money and paid this amount to Mohan the next evening. After receiving the money, Mohan asked Lala Ram, co-accused, to go ahead and a little afterwards he himself took ganga Singh and others, to village Nagla Moi situate at a distance of 1 1/3 miles, had a talk with lala Ram co-accused, ana then told Ganga Singh that the bullock would be found tied to a tree. The bullock was thus found tied to a branch of a tree standing on an open land. ( 4 ) AN important ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 215 I. P. C. is that the owner has been deprived of a movable property by any offence punishable under the I. P. C. I find no reason to give a restricted meaning to the word "deprived. " Wherever a cattle goes astray, the owner thereof cannot be said to have been deprived thereof simply because he is not then aware where the cattle is. " Wherever a cattle goes astray, the owner thereof cannot be said to have been deprived thereof simply because he is not then aware where the cattle is. He is deprived of the property only when it has been criminally misappropriated by someone and there is no immediate possibility of its return to him. Temporary loss of property, as by straying of cattle cannot amount to deprivation as contemplated by Section 215 I. P. C. In other words, if a cattle going astray Is criminally misappropriated by another person, the Courts of law can lay down that the owner was deprived of the property when it became the subject of criminal misappropriation. It is thus not necessary that an offence be committed at the time the property goes out of the possession of the owner. What the Courts of law have to see is whether at the time of actual deprivation any offence was committed. Consequently, if there exists evidence on the record to Justify a finding that the property of which the owner was deprived, is the subject of criminal misappropriation, that would be an instance of the person being deprived of the property by an offence punishable under the Code. ( 5 ) WHERE an offence has been committed at the time the owner loses the property or is deprived of it, no further evidence is necessary and, the Courts can straight off hold that the owner was deprived of the property by an offence, say of theft, punishable under the Indian Penal Code; but where no offence was committed at the time of the loss of the property, as in the case of criminal mis-appropriation, there must be material on record, direct or circumstantial, to show that the offence of criminal misappropriation has been committed and that as a result thereof the owner has been deprived of the property. ( 6 ) WHERE the person finding the lost property has the intention to return it to the rightful owner, he shall not be guilty of the offence of criminal misappropriation even though he is not prompt and wants to make money by making a demand from the owner. Wherever direct evidence is adduced by the prosecution, it shall have to be assessed to find, out if the offence of criminal misappropriation had been committed. Wherever direct evidence is adduced by the prosecution, it shall have to be assessed to find, out if the offence of criminal misappropriation had been committed. If no direct evidence has been adduced, the circumstances of the case must be looked into to find out i the circumstances lead to only one inference, namely, that the offence of criminal misappropriation had been committed. ( 7 ) COMING to the instant case, Mohan made the demand within 24 hours of the cattle straying. It can, therefore, be that he had found the strayed cattle and had the intention to return it to the owner, though he wanted to make some money before returning it. The circumstances of the case are thus not such which can lead to irresistible conclusion that an offence of criminal misappropriation had been committed with respect to the bullock. When no offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code was committed, in any case, It has not been established beyond doubt that such an offence has been committed, the person demanding or taking gratification cannot be punished Under Section 215 I. P. C. ( 8 ) THE Revision is hereby allowed and Mohan is acquitted of the charge Under Section 215 I. P. C. His conviction and sentence are set aside. He is on bail and his bonds are discharged. .