BERI, J.—This is an appeal against acquittal by the State of Rajasthan directed against the judgment and order of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Jalore, dated 30th September, 1964, whereby he acquitted respondents Khimla and Dalia of an offence under sec. 215 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Circumstances leading up to the present appeal briefly stated are these : Two bullocks of Khima s/o Teja were stolen from village Kanana. Some persons followed the track of the bullocks and eventually discovered that they were stolen by Khimla s/o Doonga, Dalia and Thania. The search party asked for the return of the bullocks, but Khimla s/o Doonga, Dalia and Thania demanded Rs. 400/- for the restoration of the bullocks, and eventually a sum of Rs. 380/- came to be settled and on the payment of the said amount the bullocks were returned on 26th August, 1962, in village Rama, where the three persons aforesaid resided. A report was made to the Police Station, Balotra. A case under sec. 379 I.P.C. was registered against the three persons. Another report was lodged by Head Constable, Police Station Balotra regarding the accused having received a gratification for the purposes of restoring the stolen bullocks to the complainant which it claimed constituted on offence under sec, 215 of the I.P.C. The police submitted a report before the Munsiff-Magistrate, Jalore against Khimla s/o Doonga, Dalia and Thania under sec.215 of the Indian Penal Code. Thania was found to be absconding and proceedings were taken against him under sec. 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses. The two accused denied the offence and adduced no defence evidence. An argument was raised on behalf of the defence that as the two accused Khimla and Dalia were facing a trial under sec. 379 I.P.C. regarding the theft of these two bullocks for the restoration of which they were charged under sec. 215 I.P.C., because they received the gratification of Rs. 380/-, no case under Sec. 215 I.P.C. could be made out against them. Learned Magistrate relying on Kher Singh vs. Emperor (1), a case of the Lahore High Court held that no case under Sec. 215 I.P.C. could have been put up against the accused persons because they were the thieves themselves. Aggrieved by this order of acquittal the State has come up in appeal. 3. Learned Magistrate relying on Kher Singh vs. Emperor (1), a case of the Lahore High Court held that no case under Sec. 215 I.P.C. could have been put up against the accused persons because they were the thieves themselves. Aggrieved by this order of acquittal the State has come up in appeal. 3. The interesting and important question which arises for consideration is whether a person accused of theft can also be accused of an offence under sec. 215 of the Indian Penal Code if he takes gratification for the return of that very property which he had stolen or of which he was a suspected thief. I have given my anxious consideration to the question and have examined the authorities which have taken a divergent views. Two cases of the Lahore High Court, namely, Kher Singh vs. The Emperor(l) and Godha vs. Emperor(2) and one case of the Madras High Court—In re Nalli Veerathevan(3)—support the view taken by the learned Magistrate. The opposite view is taken by Deo Suchit Rai vs. Emperor(4) and The King vs. Nga Po Nyein(5). The Patna High Court in Ramanand Teli vs. Emperor(6) has adopted the view of the Allahabad High Court in King Emperor vs. Mukhtara(7) and has evidently expressed an opinion which found favour in the later Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court. Kher Singhs case(l) proceeds on the basis of the authority of Queen Empress vs. Mohammed Ali(8), which was also followed in Veerathevans case(3) without discussion. Mohammad Alls case(8) was overruled by Mukhtaras case(7) and the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court confirmed Mukhtaras case. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Deo Suchit Rais case(4) and it will be profitable to note the observations made by the learned Judge— "There is nothing in this section which should exclude an actual thief from liability under it if, in addition to committing theft, he also tried to realise money by a promise to return the stolen article. Such an act which is independent of the act of stealing constitutes a different offence. There is no reason why a thief be not punishable for an additional offence. Such an act which is independent of the act of stealing constitutes a different offence. There is no reason why a thief be not punishable for an additional offence. The only reason for the view that a thief cannot be held guilty under this section is the fact that it is unnatural for a thiet himself to use all means in his power to cause himself to be apprehended and convicted for theft. But the language of the section does not contemplate any exception. The earlier part of the section which really describes the ingredients of the offence does not lend support to the view that the thief cannot be prosecuted under this section. The latter part of the section is really in the nature of a provision by way of a concession in favour of one who helps, though for personal gain, both in recovering the stolen property, and in bringing the thief to book. In my judgment, an actual thief or a person suspected to be the thief can be convicted under sec. 215, Penal Code " 4. Sec. 215 of the Indian Penal Code reads— "Whoever takes or agrees or consents to take any gratification under pretence or on account of helping any person to recover any moveable property of which he shall have been deprived by any offence punishable under this Code, shall, unless he uses all means in his power to cause the offender to be apprehended and convicted of the offence, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 5. The exception engrafted in latter part of sec. 215 of the Indian Penal Code seeks to cover a different situation where a person bona fide exerts himself for the purposes of tracing the thief or the stolen property or both. To hold otherwise would amount to affording an umbrella to thieves,, actual or suspected, a protection which is intended for the benefit of bona fide detectives who are covered by the latter part of the section. 6. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is allowed and the judgment of acquittal passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Jalore dated 30th September, 1964, is set aside. 6. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is allowed and the judgment of acquittal passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Jalore dated 30th September, 1964, is set aside. Since the case has been decided by the learned Magistrate on a preliminary point this case is remanded to the trial Court for deciding it in accordance with law.